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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 08/25/2025 (claimed priority date 03/09/2023):
Claims 1-6, 13-14 and 17-18 have been examined.
Claims 7-12, 15-16 and 19-20 have been canceled by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “merge/merged/merging leader moving body and follower moving body,” not just “route preliminary agreed by follower moving body and leader moving body,” as presented in fig 2 in the instant specification, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
1.1 The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: leader moving body 100; two follower moving bodies 200; a radius of 4 centered at coordinates (0,10) and (0,-10); merging point (-10,0); merging time 12:00; the direction of vector (1,0), as specified in Para [0032-0033] of the instant specification, and as supposed to be presented in fig. 2 in the instant specification.
1.2 The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following: leader moving body 100; two follower moving bodies 200; a radius of 4 centered at coordinates (0,10) and (0,-10), respectively, as merging waiting point; merging point (-10,0) in accordance with the merging time 12:00; movement direction at the time of merging as parallel to the X-axis direction (the direction of vector (1,0)), as described in Para [0032-0033] of the instant specification, and as supposed to be presented in fig. 2 in the instant specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
1.3 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1.1 Claims 1-6, 13-14 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
1.1.1 Claims 1-2, 13-14 and 18 recite the limitations/features: “merging of leader moving body and follower moving body;” “leader moving body and follower moving body merge;” “merging to follower moving body;” “merging,” which are not described in the specification or presented in the drawings in such a way as to understand, realize, or clarify what type, or kind of merging of moving bodies (e.g., vehicles, underwater unmanned vehicle (UUM)) it is, or would be. The specification merely repeats the claim language, in numerous paragraphs, BUT, HOWEVER, does not provide any explanation or description of whether the claimed/specified “merge/merging of leader moving body and follower moving body” is a well-known in the art merging vehicles in merging lanes, OR another well-known in the art merging vehicles for well-known in the art vehicle platoon(s), OR another well-known in the art merging vehicles for well-known in the art merging/connecting/docking vehicles, as single modular units, into one unity, OR what, OR how. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret the scope of claims/’specification as being applicable for well-known in the art merging vehicles for well-known in the art vehicle platoon(s), because it is well known in the art that vehicle platoon(s) typically has/have leader(s) and follower(s), while merging vehicles typically have external vehicles in another lane trying to join an active platoon stream.
1.1.2 Claims 2-6, 14 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
1.1.3 Claim 6 recite the limitations/features “an initial value of the state,” ”determining an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item,” which are not described or supported in the specification. The specification is silent about any “initial value of state,” or any “initial value,” and/or how the limitation/feature/method step of “determining an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item” is being executed/performed/achieved/established/made. The specification, in several paragraphs, merely repeats the claim language without any explanation or support for what the claimed/specified “initial value of state,” or “initial value” is/are, and/or how the claimed/specified step of “determining an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item” is being executed/performed/achieved/established/made. Clarification is required.
See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63).
See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx .
Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349) … . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may “express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
For the purpose of this examination, the limitations/features “an initial value of the state,” ”determining an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item” are not given a patentable weight and withdrawn from consideration.
Hence, the Examiner will interpret the scope of claim 6 as “determining, by leading vehicle, whether each of specified/required parameters for platooning request meet corresponding predetermined requirements for platooning request, after or upon receiving the platooning request, and if so, the leading vehicle will determine to agree to the form the platoon with following vehicles.”
2. 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.
2.1 Claims 1-6, 13-14 and 17-18 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.
2.1.1 Claims 1-2, 13-14 and 18 recite the limitations/features: “merging of leader moving body and follower moving body;” “leader moving body and follower moving body merge;” “merging to follower moving body;” “merging,” which is unclear to understand, realize, or clarify what type, or kind of merging of moving bodies (e.g., vehicles, underwater unmanned vehicle (UUM)) it is, or would be, which renders the claims indefinite.
Additionally, these limitations/features: “merging of leader moving body and follower moving body;” “leader moving body and follower moving body merge;” “merging to follower moving body;” “merging” are not supported or described in the specification or presented in the drawings, as discussed above in the instant office action, which renders the claims indefinite.
It is unclear whether the claimed/specified “merge/merging of leader moving body and follower moving body” is a well-known in the art merging vehicles in merging lanes, OR another well-known in the art merging vehicles for well-known in the art vehicle platoon(s), OR another well-known in the art merging vehicles for well-known in the art merging/connecting/docking vehicles, as single modular units, into one unity, OR what, OR how, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret the scope of claims/’specification as being applicable for well-known in the art merging vehicles for well-known in the art vehicle platoon(s), because it is well known in the art that vehicle platoon(s) typically has/have leader(s) and follower(s), while merging vehicles typically have external vehicles in another lane trying to join an active platoon stream.
2.1.2 Claims 2-6, 14 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2.1.3 Claim 6 recite the limitations/features “an initial value of the state,” ”determining an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item,” which is unclear what the “initial value of state,” or the “initial value” is/are, and what or how that step of “determining an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item” is/is being executed/performed/achieved/established/made, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally these limitations/features are not described or supported in the specification, as discussed above, which renders the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the limitations/features “an initial value of the state,” ”determining an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item” are not given a patentable weight and withdrawn from consideration.
Hence, the Examiner will interpret the scope of claim 6 as “determining, by leading vehicle, whether each of specified/required parameters for platooning request meet corresponding predetermined requirements for platooning request, after or upon receiving the platooning request, and if so, the leading vehicle will determine to agree to the form the platoon with following vehicles.”
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BONG (KR2008085509A) in view of XU (US20210303001).
As per claim 1, BONG discloses through the invention (see entire document), a moving body control system (abstract, numerous paragraphs, claims – teaching underwater navigation system for an unmanned
submersible fleet, Underwater Navigation System for a Platoon of Multiple Unmanned Underwater Vehicles Using Range Measurements on Two Reference Stations and Inertial Sensors) comprising:
a leader moving body (fig. 1, 3, abstract, numerous paragraphs, claims – teaching mother/main ship unmanned submersible UUV (M)); and
a follower moving body (fig. 1, 3, abstract, numerous paragraphs, claims – teaching daughter/child/branch ship unmanned submersible UUV (D1, D2)).
BONG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing:
leader moving body that comprises: a first memory storing software instructions; and one or more first processors configured to execute the software instructions to: share, with the follower moving body prior to merging of the leader moving body and the follower moving body, an agreement item that is an item agreed upon regarding a method by which the leader moving body and the follower moving body merge; and control movement of the leader moving body based on the shared agreement item, and
follower moving body that comprises: a second memory storing software instructions; and one or more second processors configured to execute the software instructions to: share the agreement item with the leader moving body prior to merging of the leader moving body and the follower moving body; and control movement of the follower moving body based on the shared agreement item.
However, XU discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-6, Para [0008, 0034, 0010, 0062, 0067-0075, 0079-0080, 0084, 0086, 0114, 0119-0124, 0135-0139, 0147-0150, 0178-0179, 0185, 0189-0191] – teaching a solution for dynamically forming vehicles (or platoons) into a platoon in a process of automatic navigation, so as to achieve vehicle automatic navigation control; scheme of vehicle automatic navigation control, with which expansion of a platoon of autonomous vehicles achieved; one vehicle that forms a platoon with another vehicle or join a platoon of vehicles, a platoon of vehicles that follows one vehicle to form a platoon, or a platoon of vehicles that joins another platoon of vehicles; receiving, by a second vehicle-mounted server, a platooning request carrying a vehicle-mounted server identifier corresponding to a first vehicle-mounted server, the platooning request being transmitted by the first vehicle-mounted server, after receiving at least one piece of automatic navigation information each containing a navigation route, a destination, a current location, and a vehicle-mounted server identifier of a corresponding vehicle, and determining, based on automatic navigation information corresponding to a vehicle where the first vehicle-mounted server is located and the at least one piece of automatic navigation information, a vehicle-mounted server identifier of a vehicle to form a platoon with the vehicle where the first vehicle-mounted server is located, an information overlapping degree between automatic navigation information of the vehicle to form the platoon and the automatic navigation information corresponding to the vehicle where the first vehicle-mounted server is located meeting a predefined requirement, to the second vehicle-mounted server corresponding to the determined vehicle-mounted server identifier of the vehicle to form the platoon; determining whether to agree to form the platoon based on the platooning request; and transmitting, when it is determined to agree to form the platoon, location information and driving information of the vehicle where the second vehicle-mounted server is located to the first vehicle-mounted server transmitting the platooning request based on the vehicle-mounted server identifier carried in the platooning request in accordance with a predetermined time length, the driving information containing steering wheel angle information, throttle control amount information, and brake control amount information. The vehicle where the first vehicle-mounted server is located has one or more following vehicles, and/or the vehicle where the second vehicle-mounted server is located has one or more following vehicles.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that XU reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that all Applicant, BONG and XU teach on vehicle automatic navigation control for platooning/merging autonomous vehicles.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the XU reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BONG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by XU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to form a platoon, on overlapping navigation routes or not, and move together, so as to reduce air resistance as much as possible and reduce fuel consumption (see entire XU document, particularly Para [0031-0032]).
As per claim 2, BONG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing: one or more first processors further configured to execute the software instructions to transmit a signal indicating a call for merging to the follower moving body.
However, XU discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs through the invention – teaching platooning request transmitted to vehicle-mounted server(s); and in Para [0211-0212] – teaching computer software product stored in a storage medium and containing instructions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BONG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by XU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to form a platoon, on overlapping navigation routes or not, and move together, so as to reduce air resistance as much as possible and reduce fuel consumption (see entire XU document, particularly Para [0031-0032]).
As per claims 3 and 18, BONG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing: one or more second processors configured to execute the software instructions to: receive the transmitted signal; and
detect a direction of the leader moving body based on the received signal.
However, XU discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0052, 0089, 0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BONG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by XU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to form a platoon, on overlapping navigation routes or not, and move together, so as to reduce air resistance as much as possible and reduce fuel consumption (see entire XU document, particularly Para [0031-0032]).
As per claim 4, BONG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing: one or more second processors configured to execute the software instructions to: estimate a state of the leader moving body based on the detected direction of the leader moving body and the shared agreement item; and control movement of the follower moving body based on the estimated state.
However, XU discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-6, Para [0008, 0034, 0010, 0062, 0067-0075, 0079-0080, 0084, 0086, 0114, 0119-0124, 0135-0139, 0147-0150, 0178-0179, 0185, 0189-0191].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BONG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by XU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to form a platoon, on overlapping navigation routes or not, and move together, so as to reduce air resistance as much as possible and reduce fuel consumption (see entire XU document, particularly Para [0031-0032]).
As per claim 5, BONG further discloses through the invention (see entire document), one or more second processors configured to execute the software instructions to estimate the state using an extended Kalman filter (numerous paragraphs, e.g., bottom of 3rd paragraph on page 7, middle of 2nd paragraph on page 8, middle of 3rd paragraph on page 9, middle of 2nd paragraph on page 11 – teaching use of Kalman filter).
As per claim 6, BONG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing: executing software instructions to determine an initial value of the state based on the shared agreement item.
However, taking into consideration the 112 rejections to claim 6 presented above, in the instant office action, XU discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0146-0150] – teaching determining, by leading vehicle, whether each of specified/required parameters for platooning request meet corresponding predetermined requirements for platooning request, after or upon receiving the platooning request, and if so, the leading vehicle will determine to agree to the form the platoon with following vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BONG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by XU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to form a platoon, on overlapping navigation routes or not, and move together, so as to reduce air resistance as much as possible and reduce fuel consumption (see entire XU document, particularly Para [0031-0032]).
Claims 7-12 canceled.
As per claim 13, claim 13 recites limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in claims 1 and 2, therefore claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BONG (KR2008085509A) in view of XU (US20210303001), similar to the 103 rejections to claims 1 and 2 in the instant office action above.
As per claim 14, BONG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing: one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions to transmit the signal multiple times to the follower moving body prior to merging.
However, XU discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs through the invention – teaching platooning request transmitted to vehicle-mounted server(s); in Para [0121] – teaching periodically transmitting platooning request information to the vehicle-mounted server(s); in Para [0211-0212] – teaching computer software product stored in a storage medium and containing instructions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BONG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by XU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to form a platoon, on overlapping navigation routes or not, and move together, so as to reduce air resistance as much as possible and reduce fuel consumption (see entire XU document, particularly Para [0031-0032]).
Claims 15-16 canceled.
As per claim 17, claim 17 recites limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in claims 1-3, therefore claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BONG (KR2008085509A) in view of XU (US20210303001), similar to the 103 rejections to claims 1-3 in the instant office action above.
Claims 19-20 canceled.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
SHIBATA (US20170088144) – (see entire SHIBATA document, particularly abstract – teaching a vehicle control device mounted in a vehicle; a receiver that receives information from a wireless device mounted in another vehicle; a determiner that determines whether or not to switch an automatic steering mode to a manual steering mode on the basis of the information received by the receiver; a notifier that prompts a driver of the vehicle to switch the automatic steering mode to the manual steering mode in a case where the determiner determines to switch the automatic steering mode to the manual steering mode).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights