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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, recites, “
“……..the processing circuitry specifies at least two vehicle trains acquired by dividing the vehicle train, and presents, as the candidate, a vehicle train having a highest degree of match with the target vehicle among the at least two vehicle trains, to the occupant of the target vehicle through the human machine interface device.”
It is not clear what applicant is attempting to convey in the limitation with emphasis added. The limitation is not written with proper idiomatic English and is replete with antecedent basis errors. Therefore, the limitation is not clear,
The rejection applies to claim 5 for reciting the following:
“5. (Original) The travel support device according to claim 1, wherein when a variation in the travel preference information between a plurality of vehicles included in the vehicle train exceeds a fourth threshold value, the processing circuitry executes processing of dividing the vehicle train into at least two vehicle trains so as to acquire the at least two vehicle trains having a smaller variation than the vehicle train.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanzaki (US 2023/0419840).
Regarding claim 1, Hanzaki discloses a travel support device that supports platooning of vehicles (abstract; figs. 1-11; sec 0026-0030), comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire, from a target vehicle (vehicle 300; figs.1- 3; sec 0031, 0032, 0035) travel preference information (user desired or request information; sec 0035, 0039-0044, 0046, 0052, 0059, 0060-0064, 0067, 0095-0106) indicating a preference of an occupant of the target vehicle regarding vehicle traveling (vehicle 300; sec 00035) and including travel pattern preference information on a desired travel pattern (formation pattern; sec 0035, 0052, 0059, 0060-0064, 0067, 0095-0106); and
based on the acquired travel preference information, execute vehicle train formation support processing of supporting formation of-that causes the target vehicle to travel and join a vehicle train, on a route, and result in that performs the platooning (figs. 7-11; sec 0035, 0052, 0059, 0060-0064, 0067, 0095-0106);
wherein the vehicle train formation support processing includes presenting information representing the vehicle train as a candidate for cooperatively performing the platooning, to the occupant of the target vehicle through a human machine interface device of the target vehicle (sec 0035, 0039-0044, 0046, 0052, 0059, 0060-0064, 0067, 0095-0106), when a degree of match of the travel preference information between the vehicle train and the target vehicle is higher than a first threshold value (sec 0035, 0039-0044, 0046, 0052, 0059, 0069-0089).
Regarding claim 2, Hanzaki discloses the travel support device according to claim 1, wherein the travel preference information further includes at least one of destination preference information on a desired destination and travel speed preference information on a desired travel speed (sec 0149-0154).
Regarding claim 3, Hanzaki discloses the travel support device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle train formation support processing further includes:
calculating a time for the target vehicle to reach the vehicle train based on information on a position and a travel speed of the target vehicle and information on a position and a travel speed of the vehicle train (sec 0149-0154); and
excluding the vehicle train from the candidate when the time is longer than a second threshold value (sec 0149-0154).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art (US 10930159 B1, US 12340077 B2) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights