VEHICLE

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 . This is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are addressed below. Response to Amendments The amendment filed on July 6th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 4-10 have been newly added. Response to Arguments The previous objection to the specification has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments. The previous rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 USC 112(b) has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments. The previous contingent limitations of claims 1 and 3 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments. The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments, however, at least one pertinent argument remains. The applicant states (Amend. 10) that Maruyama (US 20240326803 A1) (“Maruyama”) fails to teach “perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data, in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle” as recited in amended claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Maruyama teaches that a vehicle performs a first control to secure an occupant’s safety in response to a determination of a preceding vehicle’s information (See at least Maruyama FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 38-43 and 62-72) such that the combinations of references would be obvious to perform the first control in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle. 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. 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: “a group data obtainer configured to obtain” in at least claim 1 “a travel data obtainer configured to acquire” in at least claim 1 “a determiner configured to make” in at least claim 1 “a communicator that communicates” in at least 4 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. The published specification provides a corresponding structure for the claimed limitations in at least paragraph 28. 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 § 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. Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokimasa (JP 2011170555 A) (“Tokimasa”) (Translation Attached) in view of Unagami (US 20170126404 A1) (“Unagami”) in view of Maruyama (US 20240326803 A1) (“Maruyama”) in view of Yano (JP 2022156760 A) (“Yano”) (Translation Attached). With respect to claim 1, Tokimasa teaches a vehicle comprising: a group data obtainer configured to acquire group data unique to the vehicle, the vehicle comprising a first vehicle, the group data including a first identification for identifying a particular vehicle which is different from the first vehicle, generating group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user corresponding to the first vehicle and a second user corresponding to a particular vehicle (See at least Tokimasa FIG. 4 and Paragraphs 40-43 “In FIG. 4, first, in step S100, autonomous sensor information is acquired. In subsequent step S102, the wireless information of the other vehicle is received. As described above, this wireless information includes the travel plan, acceleration / deceleration information (detected value), and identification code of the vehicle that transmitted the wireless information. The subsequent step S104 is a process corresponding to the own vehicle information transmitting means, and the wireless information of the own vehicle is broadcast from the wireless device 30. As described above, the wireless information includes the travel plan of the host vehicle, acceleration / deceleration information of the host vehicle based on the detection value of the behavior information sensor 40, and the identification code of the host vehicle. Note that the travel plan is created based on the travel plan of the leading vehicle included in the wireless information acquired in step S102 and the autonomous sensor information acquired in step S100. The subsequent step 106 is processing corresponding to the tail determining means, and determines whether or not the host vehicle is the tail of the vehicle group. This determination is made based on the autonomous sensor information acquired in step S100, and if there is no other vehicle within a predetermined distance behind the host vehicle, it is determined that it is the tail end. When it is determined that it is the tail end, the process proceeds to step S108, and when it is determined that it is not the tail end, the process proceeds to step S112. Step S108 corresponds to the immediately preceding vehicle acceleration / deceleration information determining unit and the last start point number information determining unit in the claims. In this step S108, a plurality of acceleration / deceleration information included in the wireless information from the plurality of vehicles acquired in step S102, and the acceleration / deceleration information of the immediately preceding vehicle determined based on the autonomous sensor information acquired in step S100, And the acceleration / deceleration information included in the wireless information that most closely matches the acceleration / deceleration information determined based on the autonomous sensor information is the acceleration / deceleration information of the second vehicle from the tail. decide.”); a travel data obtainer configured to acquire travel data from a second vehicle; a determiner configured to make a determination, based on the group data, as to whether the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, in response to acquiring the travel data from the second vehicle (See at least Tokimasa Paragraph 46 “If step S112 is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S114. In step S114, in the same manner as in step S108, the acceleration / deceleration information of the immediately preceding vehicle is specified, and the wireless information including the acceleration / deceleration information is specified. This step S114 also corresponds to the immediately preceding vehicle acceleration / deceleration information determining means.” | Paragraph 55 “As described above, when the leading vehicle acquires the traffic signal information from the beacon 90, the leading vehicle determines whether to pass or stop the traffic signal, and determines a travel plan based on the determination. However, the head vehicle cannot always receive the traffic signal information from the beacon. Therefore, when the traffic signal information cannot be received from the beacon, the leading vehicle acquires the traffic signal information that the following vehicle has received from the beacon by inter-vehicle communication indicated by the arrow E. And the travel plan to a traffic signal is determined based on the traffic signal information received from the following vehicle.”); and Tokimasa, however, fails to explicitly disclose a server, storing the group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user corresponding to the first vehicle and a second user corresponding to a particular vehicle, the mutual authentication being based on operation by the first user; the travel data comprising at least data on activation of an occupant protection system and a second identification for identifying the second vehicle; perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data, in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, and perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle. Unagami teachings a server, storing the group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user and a second user, the mutual authentication being based on operation by the first user (See at least Unagami Paragraphs 90-102 “(S1000) A user presses the pairing button of the device A and the pairing button of the controller B. In response to this action, each of the device A and the controller B starts the registration mode. (S1005) The device A transmits a connection request to the controller B. At that time, the device A also transmits the device ID of the SC set therein. When no SC is set in the device A, information indicating so is transmitted. (S1010) The controller B determines whether the negotiation process is needed on the basis of the device ID of the SC set therein and the device ID of the SC which the controller B is notified of by the device A. The negotiation process is needed in the authentication system 100 if different controllers are set as the SC in the device A and the controller B. Conversely, the negotiation process need not be performed when no SC is set in the device A and when the same controller is set as the SC in the device A and the controller B. (S1015) If it is determined in step S1010 that the negotiation process is needed, the negotiation process is performed between the controller set as the SC in the device A and the controller set as the SC in the controller B … (S1040) After the mutual authentication process and the group key distribution/reception process have successfully ended, the device A or the controller B performs a process of placing itself under the control of the incoming SC. The device A sets the device ID of the incoming SC as the SC 912 of the group-relating information 910 stored on the device information storage unit 820 or the controller B sets the device ID of the incoming SC as the SC 512 of the group-relating information 510 stored on the device information storage unit 420. Then, the device A or the controller B transmits the device ID thereof to the incoming SC, and the SC sets the received device ID as the device under the control 513 of the group-relating information 510 stored on the device information storage unit 420.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa to include storing the group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user and a second user, the mutual authentication being based on operation by the first user, as taught by Unagami as disclose above, such that the mutual authentication is between a first user corresponding to the first vehicle and a second user corresponding to a particular vehicle, in order to ensure accurate data storage (Unagami Paragraph 2 “The present disclosure relates to a technique for performing mutual authentication between controllers and devices connected to a network and sharing a group key among the controllers and the devices”). Tokimasa in view of Unagami, however, fails to explicitly disclose the travel data comprising at least data on activation of an occupant protection system and a second identification for identifying the second vehicle; perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data, in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, and perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle. Maruyama teaches the travel data comprising at least data on activation of an occupant protection system and a second identification for identifying the second vehicle (See at least Maruyama FIG. 2 and Paragraph 40 “As illustrated in FIG. 2 , examples of the travel information that the information acquisitor 15 acquires from the preceding vehicle include vehicle identification information, travel location information, vehicle speed information, a safety device operation status, and a wiper/light operation status. The safety device operation status is, for example, an operation status of ADAS functions such as anti-skid function.”); a control processor configured to perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data (See at least Maruyama FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 68-71 “When the processor 10 checks the identification results of the danger zone stored in the memory 20 and determines that the danger zone has been detected by the danger zone identifier 13 (“YES” in step S140), the process moves to step S150. The information acquisitor 15 acquires the travel information and the road surface information from the preceding vehicle traveling ahead on the travel route when traveling in the danger zone (step S150), and the process moves to step S160. The speed determiner 16 determines the safe-travel speed at which the vehicle can travel in the danger zone safely based on the travel information and the road surface information acquired in step S150 (step S160), and the process moves to step S170. The speed controller 17 controls the travel speed of the vehicle in the danger zone based on the safe-travel speed determined in step S160 (step S170), and the process is terminated.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa in view of Unagami to include that the travel data comprises at least data on activation of an occupant protection system from one or more second vehicles comprising the particular vehicle; a control processor configured to perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data, as taught by Maruyama as disclosed above, such that the first control is performed in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, in order to ensure safe movement of the vehicle (Maruyama Paragraph 15 “It is desirable to provide a driver assistance device configured to perform a highly accurate speed control based on travel information of a preceding vehicle and road surface information.”). Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama, however, fail to explicitly disclose that the control processor is configured to perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle. Yano teaches that the control processor is configured to perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle (See at least Yano FIG. 6 and Paragraph 60-64 “Further, when the information analysis unit 22 receives the notification from the forward vehicle CF (YES in step SP31), the information analysis unit 22 registers the information in the in-vehicle information database T10 (step SP32). The information analysis unit 22 obtains the distance between the vehicle C and the dangerous event by adding the distance between the vehicle C and the forward vehicle CF to the distance to the dangerous event included in the information, and calculates the distance between the vehicle C and the dangerous event. is registered in the in-vehicle information database T10. If the information analysis unit 22 has not received the notification from the forward vehicle CF (NO in step SP31), the process proceeds to step SP13. Next, the priority calculator 23 calculates the priority of each dangerous event registered in the in-vehicle information database T10 (step SP13). Then, the priority calculation unit 23 rearranges the dangerous events in the in-vehicle information database T10 in descending order of priority to generate the in-vehicle information database T11 (step SP13). The information generator 24 determines whether or not there is data indicating that the direction of the dangerous event is "forward" in the in-vehicle information database T10 (step SP14). If there is data indicating that the direction is "forward" (YES in step SP14), the information transmission unit 32 transmits the data to the rear vehicle CB (step SP23). In step SP23, if there are multiple pieces of data whose direction is "forward", the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit the data in descending order of priority. Also, the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit all of the plurality of data at the same time. Next, the information providing device 1 advances the process to step SP15. It should be noted that even if the data does not exist in step SP14 (NO in step SP14), the information providing device 1 advances the process to step SP15. The information generator 24 determines whether or not there is data in the in-vehicle information database T10 that indicates that the direction of the dangerous event is "backward" (step SP15). If there is data indicating that the direction is "backward" (YES in step SP15), the information transmitting unit 32 transmits the data to the forward vehicle CF (step SP33). In step SP33, if there are multiple pieces of data whose direction is "backward", the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit the data in descending order of priority. Also, the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit all of the plurality of data at the same time. Next, the information providing device 1 advances the process to step SP16. Note that even if the data does not exist in step SP15, the information providing apparatus 1 advances the process to step SP16. Next, the driver information providing section 40 issues a warning to the inside of the vehicle (step SP16). This completes the series of processes shown in FIG.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama to include that the control processor is configured to perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle, as taught by Yano as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe operation of the vehicle (Yano Paragraph 6 “The present invention has been made in view of such circumstances, and an object of the present invention is to allow a driver to appropriately recognize a dangerous event and drive a vehicle safely.”). With respect to claim 2, Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano teach that the travel data comprises at least data on activation of autonomous emergency braking (See at least Maruyama Paragraph 40 “As illustrated in FIG. 2 , examples of the travel information that the information acquisitor 15 acquires from the preceding vehicle include vehicle identification information, travel location information, vehicle speed information, a safety device operation status, and a wiper/light operation status. The safety device operation status is, for example, an operation status of ADAS functions such as anti-skid function.”). With respect to claim 3, Tokimasa teaches a vehicle comprising one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: acquire group data unique to the vehicle, the vehicle comprising a first vehicle, the group data including a first identification for identifying a particular vehicle which is different from the first vehicle, generating group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user corresponding to the first vehicle and a second user corresponding to a particular vehicle (See at least Tokimasa FIG. 4 and Paragraphs 40-43 “In FIG. 4, first, in step S100, autonomous sensor information is acquired. In subsequent step S102, the wireless information of the other vehicle is received. As described above, this wireless information includes the travel plan, acceleration / deceleration information (detected value), and identification code of the vehicle that transmitted the wireless information. The subsequent step S104 is a process corresponding to the own vehicle information transmitting means, and the wireless information of the own vehicle is broadcast from the wireless device 30. As described above, the wireless information includes the travel plan of the host vehicle, acceleration / deceleration information of the host vehicle based on the detection value of the behavior information sensor 40, and the identification code of the host vehicle. Note that the travel plan is created based on the travel plan of the leading vehicle included in the wireless information acquired in step S102 and the autonomous sensor information acquired in step S100. The subsequent step 106 is processing corresponding to the tail determining means, and determines whether or not the host vehicle is the tail of the vehicle group. This determination is made based on the autonomous sensor information acquired in step S100, and if there is no other vehicle within a predetermined distance behind the host vehicle, it is determined that it is the tail end. When it is determined that it is the tail end, the process proceeds to step S108, and when it is determined that it is not the tail end, the process proceeds to step S112. Step S108 corresponds to the immediately preceding vehicle acceleration / deceleration information determining unit and the last start point number information determining unit in the claims. In this step S108, a plurality of acceleration / deceleration information included in the wireless information from the plurality of vehicles acquired in step S102, and the acceleration / deceleration information of the immediately preceding vehicle determined based on the autonomous sensor information acquired in step S100, And the acceleration / deceleration information included in the wireless information that most closely matches the acceleration / deceleration information determined based on the autonomous sensor information is the acceleration / deceleration information of the second vehicle from the tail. decide.”); acquire travel data from a second vehicle; a determiner configured to make a determination, based on the group data, as to whether the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, in response to acquiring the travel data from the second vehicle (See at least Tokimasa Paragraph 46 “If step S112 is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S114. In step S114, in the same manner as in step S108, the acceleration / deceleration information of the immediately preceding vehicle is specified, and the wireless information including the acceleration / deceleration information is specified. This step S114 also corresponds to the immediately preceding vehicle acceleration / deceleration information determining means.” | Paragraph 55 “As described above, when the leading vehicle acquires the traffic signal information from the beacon 90, the leading vehicle determines whether to pass or stop the traffic signal, and determines a travel plan based on the determination. However, the head vehicle cannot always receive the traffic signal information from the beacon. Therefore, when the traffic signal information cannot be received from the beacon, the leading vehicle acquires the traffic signal information that the following vehicle has received from the beacon by inter-vehicle communication indicated by the arrow E. And the travel plan to a traffic signal is determined based on the traffic signal information received from the following vehicle.”); and Tokimasa, however, fails to explicitly disclose storing the group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user corresponding to the first vehicle and a second user corresponding to a particular vehicle, the mutual authentication being based on operation by the first user; the travel data comprising at least data on activation of an occupant protection system and a second identification for identifying the second vehicle; perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data, in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, and perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle. Unagami teachings storing the group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user and a second user, the mutual authentication being based on operation by the first user (See at least Unagami Paragraphs 90-102 “(S1000) A user presses the pairing button of the device A and the pairing button of the controller B. In response to this action, each of the device A and the controller B starts the registration mode. (S1005) The device A transmits a connection request to the controller B. At that time, the device A also transmits the device ID of the SC set therein. When no SC is set in the device A, information indicating so is transmitted. (S1010) The controller B determines whether the negotiation process is needed on the basis of the device ID of the SC set therein and the device ID of the SC which the controller B is notified of by the device A. The negotiation process is needed in the authentication system 100 if different controllers are set as the SC in the device A and the controller B. Conversely, the negotiation process need not be performed when no SC is set in the device A and when the same controller is set as the SC in the device A and the controller B. (S1015) If it is determined in step S1010 that the negotiation process is needed, the negotiation process is performed between the controller set as the SC in the device A and the controller set as the SC in the controller B … (S1040) After the mutual authentication process and the group key distribution/reception process have successfully ended, the device A or the controller B performs a process of placing itself under the control of the incoming SC. The device A sets the device ID of the incoming SC as the SC 912 of the group-relating information 910 stored on the device information storage unit 820 or the controller B sets the device ID of the incoming SC as the SC 512 of the group-relating information 510 stored on the device information storage unit 420. Then, the device A or the controller B transmits the device ID thereof to the incoming SC, and the SC sets the received device ID as the device under the control 513 of the group-relating information 510 stored on the device information storage unit 420.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa to include storing the group data in response to establishing mutual authentication between a first user and a second user, the mutual authentication being based on operation by the first user, as taught by Unagami as disclose above, such that the mutual authentication is between a first user corresponding to the first vehicle and a second user corresponding to a particular vehicle, in order to ensure accurate data storage (Unagami Paragraph 2 “The present disclosure relates to a technique for performing mutual authentication between controllers and devices connected to a network and sharing a group key among the controllers and the devices”). Tokimasa in view of Unagami, however, fails to explicitly disclose the travel data comprising at least data on activation of an occupant protection system and a second identification for identifying the second vehicle; perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data, in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, and perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle. Maruyama teaches the travel data comprising at least data on activation of an occupant protection system and a second identification for identifying the second vehicle (See at least Maruyama FIG. 2 and Paragraph 40 “As illustrated in FIG. 2 , examples of the travel information that the information acquisitor 15 acquires from the preceding vehicle include vehicle identification information, travel location information, vehicle speed information, a safety device operation status, and a wiper/light operation status. The safety device operation status is, for example, an operation status of ADAS functions such as anti-skid function.”); a control processor configured to perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data (See at least Maruyama FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 68-71 “When the processor 10 checks the identification results of the danger zone stored in the memory 20 and determines that the danger zone has been detected by the danger zone identifier 13 (“YES” in step S140), the process moves to step S150. The information acquisitor 15 acquires the travel information and the road surface information from the preceding vehicle traveling ahead on the travel route when traveling in the danger zone (step S150), and the process moves to step S160. The speed determiner 16 determines the safe-travel speed at which the vehicle can travel in the danger zone safely based on the travel information and the road surface information acquired in step S150 (step S160), and the process moves to step S170. The speed controller 17 controls the travel speed of the vehicle in the danger zone based on the safe-travel speed determined in step S160 (step S170), and the process is terminated.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa in view of Unagami to include that the travel data comprises at least data on activation of an occupant protection system from one or more second vehicles comprising the particular vehicle; a control processor configured to perform a first control adapted to secure safety of an occupant of the first vehicle, based on the travel data, as taught by Maruyama as disclosed above, such that the first control is performed in response to making a first determination that the second vehicle is the particular vehicle, in order to ensure safe movement of the vehicle (Maruyama Paragraph 15 “It is desirable to provide a driver assistance device configured to perform a highly accurate speed control based on travel information of a preceding vehicle and road surface information.”). Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama, however, fail to explicitly disclose that the control processor is configured to perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle. Yano teaches that the control processor is configured to perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle (See at least Yano FIG. 6 and Paragraph 60-64 “Further, when the information analysis unit 22 receives the notification from the forward vehicle CF (YES in step SP31), the information analysis unit 22 registers the information in the in-vehicle information database T10 (step SP32). The information analysis unit 22 obtains the distance between the vehicle C and the dangerous event by adding the distance between the vehicle C and the forward vehicle CF to the distance to the dangerous event included in the information, and calculates the distance between the vehicle C and the dangerous event. is registered in the in-vehicle information database T10. If the information analysis unit 22 has not received the notification from the forward vehicle CF (NO in step SP31), the process proceeds to step SP13. Next, the priority calculator 23 calculates the priority of each dangerous event registered in the in-vehicle information database T10 (step SP13). Then, the priority calculation unit 23 rearranges the dangerous events in the in-vehicle information database T10 in descending order of priority to generate the in-vehicle information database T11 (step SP13). The information generator 24 determines whether or not there is data indicating that the direction of the dangerous event is "forward" in the in-vehicle information database T10 (step SP14). If there is data indicating that the direction is "forward" (YES in step SP14), the information transmission unit 32 transmits the data to the rear vehicle CB (step SP23). In step SP23, if there are multiple pieces of data whose direction is "forward", the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit the data in descending order of priority. Also, the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit all of the plurality of data at the same time. Next, the information providing device 1 advances the process to step SP15. It should be noted that even if the data does not exist in step SP14 (NO in step SP14), the information providing device 1 advances the process to step SP15. The information generator 24 determines whether or not there is data in the in-vehicle information database T10 that indicates that the direction of the dangerous event is "backward" (step SP15). If there is data indicating that the direction is "backward" (YES in step SP15), the information transmitting unit 32 transmits the data to the forward vehicle CF (step SP33). In step SP33, if there are multiple pieces of data whose direction is "backward", the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit the data in descending order of priority. Also, the information transmitting unit 32 may transmit all of the plurality of data at the same time. Next, the information providing device 1 advances the process to step SP16. Note that even if the data does not exist in step SP15, the information providing apparatus 1 advances the process to step SP16. Next, the driver information providing section 40 issues a warning to the inside of the vehicle (step SP16). This completes the series of processes shown in FIG.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama to include that the control processor is configured to perform a second control to notify the first user of the travel data, instead of performing the first control based on the travel data, in response to making a second determination that the second vehicle is not the particular vehicle, as taught by Yano as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe operation of the vehicle (Yano Paragraph 6 “The present invention has been made in view of such circumstances, and an object of the present invention is to allow a driver to appropriately recognize a dangerous event and drive a vehicle safely.”). With respect to claim 4, and similarly claim 8, Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano teach a communicator that communicates with the server via a network, wherein the group data obtainer is configured to acquire the group data from the server via the communicator (See at least Unagami Paragraph 49), and the travel data obtainer is configured to acquire the travel data from the second vehicle without the network (See at least Tokimasa Paragraphs 40-43). Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokimasa (JP 2011170555 A) (“Tokimasa”) (Translation Attached) in view of Unagami (US 20170126404 A1) (“Unagami”) in view of Maruyama (US 20240326803 A1) (“Maruyama”) in view of Yano (JP 2022156760 A) (“Yano”) (Translation Attached) further in view of Hishon (US 20040251366 A1) (“Hishon”). With respect to claim 5, and similarly claims 6-7, Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano fail to explicitly disclose that the first control includes a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt. Hishon teaches a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt (See at least Hishon Paragraph 26 “In certain embodiments, the electric seat belt retractor includes one or more systems which override the tension sensor in order to provide additional safety features. For example, an automatic locking system may activate or deactivate based on the number of rotations of the spool to prevent overextension of the seat belt. When the automatic locking system is activated, the tension sensor is overridden by the automatic locking system which activates the motor for retraction but prevents extraction. Similarly, an emergency control system may override the tension sensor to provide reversible pre-crash pretensioning and/or crash pretensioning in response to sensors that track certain vehicle dynamics such as pitch, yaw, panic braking, loss of traction, dramatic steering wheel movement, and the like.” | Paragraph 44 “Generally, the retractor 10 adjusts the seat belt 12 by paying out or retracting the seat belt 12 as needed. A rewind spring (not shown) is generally used to pay out or retract the seat belt 12. In the retractor 10, excess seat belt webbing 12 is taken up by the rewind spring connected to a spool 14 around which the seat belt webbing 12 is wound to form a take-up mechanism. An axle 15 of the spool 14 rotates about an axis 16 secured within a retractor frame 18. Preferably, the spool 14 rotates to pay out and retract the seat belt 12 in response to the needs of an occupant.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano to include a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt, as taught by Hishon as disclosed above, such that the first control includes a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt, in order to ensure driver safety (Hishon Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to seat belt systems designed to protect the occupants of a vehicle during a collision. More specifically, the invention relates to an electric seat belt retractor system which is uniquely capable of protecting an occupant during normal use, pre-crash situations, and crash situations, and is capable of constantly and dynamically adjusting to the positioning of the occupant.”). Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokimasa (JP 2011170555 A) (“Tokimasa”) (Translation Attached) in view of Unagami (US 20170126404 A1) (“Unagami”) in view of Maruyama (US 20240326803 A1) (“Maruyama”) in view of Yano (JP 2022156760 A) (“Yano”) (Translation Attached) further in view of Baitinger (CN 111645649 B) (“Baitinger”) (Translation Attached). With respect to claim 9, Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano fail to explicitly disclose that the travel data further comprises data on activation of autonomous emergency braking. Baitinger teaches that the travel data further comprises data on activation of autonomous emergency braking (See at least Baitinger Paragraphs 20-23 “According to the present invention, the dilemma described at the beginning of this document can be resolved by a method for controlling a convoy having a first vehicle traveling ahead and at least one second vehicle electronically coupled directly following the first vehicle. In this method, the vehicles move at least temporarily with a pre-defined, constant longitudinal spacing along a travel route based on a pre-defined overall operating strategy (convoy regulator) assigned to the convoy. The first and second vehicles exchange data via vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, the data relating at least to their instantaneous longitudinal deceleration and at least one parameter representing the instantaneous longitudinal spacing between the second and first vehicles. The method includes at least the following steps: a) When the first motor vehicle brakes from the moment of triggering of an emergency braking event by its driver and/or by an emergency braking event automatically triggered in the first motor vehicle, the emergency braking of the first motor vehicle decelerates longitudinally from the moment of triggering at a first deceleration value that is the maximum possible for the first motor vehicle, wherein, b) The triggering of emergency braking in the first vehicle is notified to the second vehicle via the vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, thereby triggering emergency braking with a second deceleration value that is most likely for the second vehicle, substantially from the triggering time, to reduce longitudinal speed. c) If, based on data exchanged between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, it is identified at a first moment later than the triggering time that a parameter representing the longitudinal distance changes during continuous emergency braking to the point of posing a risk of the second vehicle colliding with the first vehicle, then the longitudinal deceleration of the first vehicle is reduced, at least in stages, to a limited deceleration value that is less than the maximum possible first deceleration value, in such a manner that it does not cause the second vehicle to come into contact with the first vehicle during the emergency braking or while the first and second vehicles are braking to a stop”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano to include that the travel data further comprises data on activation of autonomous emergency braking, as taught by Baitinger as disclosed above, such that the first control includes a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt, in order to ensure vehicle safety (Baitinger Paragraph 3 “The present invention relates to a method for controlling a convoy having a first vehicle traveling in front and at least one second vehicle following the first vehicle traveling in front in an electronically coupled manner”). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokimasa (JP 2011170555 A) (“Tokimasa”) (Translation Attached) in view of Unagami (US 20170126404 A1) (“Unagami”) in view of Maruyama (US 20240326803 A1) (“Maruyama”) in view of Yano (JP 2022156760 A) (“Yano”) (Translation Attached) in view of Baitinger (CN 111645649 B) (“Baitinger”) (Translation Attached) further in view of Hishon (US 20040251366 A1) (“Hishon”). With respect to claim 10, Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano in view of Baitinger fail to explicitly disclose that the first control includes a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt. Hishon teaches a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt (See at least Hishon Paragraph 26 “In certain embodiments, the electric seat belt retractor includes one or more systems which override the tension sensor in order to provide additional safety features. For example, an automatic locking system may activate or deactivate based on the number of rotations of the spool to prevent overextension of the seat belt. When the automatic locking system is activated, the tension sensor is overridden by the automatic locking system which activates the motor for retraction but prevents extraction. Similarly, an emergency control system may override the tension sensor to provide reversible pre-crash pretensioning and/or crash pretensioning in response to sensors that track certain vehicle dynamics such as pitch, yaw, panic braking, loss of traction, dramatic steering wheel movement, and the like.” | Paragraph 44 “Generally, the retractor 10 adjusts the seat belt 12 by paying out or retracting the seat belt 12 as needed. A rewind spring (not shown) is generally used to pay out or retract the seat belt 12. In the retractor 10, excess seat belt webbing 12 is taken up by the rewind spring connected to a spool 14 around which the seat belt webbing 12 is wound to form a take-up mechanism. An axle 15 of the spool 14 rotates about an axis 16 secured within a retractor frame 18. Preferably, the spool 14 rotates to pay out and retract the seat belt 12 in response to the needs of an occupant.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Tokimasa in view of Unagami in view of Maruyama in view of Yano in view of Baitinger to include a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt, as taught by Hishon as disclosed above, such that the first control includes a control of winding up a slack of a seatbelt, in order to ensure driver safety (Hishon Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to seat belt systems designed to protect the occupants of a vehicle during a collision. More specifically, the invention relates to an electric seat belt retractor system which is uniquely capable of protecting an occupant during normal use, pre-crash situations, and crash situations, and is capable of constantly and dynamically adjusting to the positioning of the occupant.”). 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 IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30. 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 Almatrahi can be reached at 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 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. /IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667