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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on ----7/1/2025 for application 19/256,477. Claim 1 – 5 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 8/8/2025.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action by applicant is require at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/1/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Such claim limitation is:
“a control information acquisition unit” in Claim 1. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at Fig. 3, 4, & [0046] of the instant application and interpreted as a general processor that performs the recited function.
“an emergency information acquisition unit” in Claim 1. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at Fig. 3, 4, & [0046] of the instant application and interpreted as a general processor that performs the recited function.
“a travel control unit” in Claim 1. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at Fig. 3, 4, & [0046] of the instant application and interpreted as a general processor that performs the recited function.
“an emergency situation detection unit” in Claim 4. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at Fig. 3, 4, & [0052] of the instant application and interpreted as a general processor that performs the recited function.
“an emergency information output unit” in Claim 4. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at Fig. 3, 4, & [0052] of the instant application and interpreted as a general processor that performs the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (hereinafter Zhang), WO2018000386 in view of Ferone et al., (hereinafter Ferone), US20250071528 and Sato, EP4052982B1.
Claim 1. Zhang, teaches A vehicle control device that controls operation of a vehicle that travels in a convoy (translation page 1, “controlling vehicle platoon driving”; the controller on the vehicle is the vehicle control device), the vehicle control device including:
a control information acquisition unit that acquires control information relating to operation control for the vehicle from a server (fig. 5 – 8, & translation page 24 – 25, “centralized control device (server) may control the timing at which the second vehicle starts shifting, the acceleration of the shift, the time required to complete the shift, and the like, thereby controlling the second vehicle”; translation page 28, “The first transmitting unit may correspond to the communication module 41 (control information acquisition unit) in the controlled vehicle 40 shown in FIG. 3 for communication with the centralized control device.”; i.e., the second vehicle receive/acquires control information from server);
Zhang does not explicitly teach:
an emergency information acquisition unit that acquires emergency information that is information that indicates an emergency situation from a different vehicle that travels in the convoy;
a travel control unit that controls the operation of the vehicle based on the control information when the emergency information acquisition unit does not acquire the emergency information, and that controls the operation of the vehicle so as to execute emergency operation when the emergency information acquisition unit acquires the emergency information.
Ferone, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
an emergency information acquisition unit that acquires emergency information that is information that indicates an emergency situation from a different vehicle that travels in the convoy (Ferone, fig. 2 & 0030, “To combat latency issues, a lead vehicle in a platoon (convoy) may use its external lights and/or non-visible lights to communicate messages via a light pattern to a following vehicle” 0054 – 0062, “For example, vehicle 102 can be equipped with a sensor 212a (emergency information acquisition unit) … can detect the light pattern 250b from the light emitter 226b”, 0010 – 0013, “The first light emitter can be a brake light, and the message can include a reason for a braking maneuver, a deceleration rate of the vehicle, a level of urgency in braking, and/or an indication of an upcoming road hazard”, “The first light emitter can be a hazard light, and the message can include a reason for why the hazard light is activated, an indication of an upcoming road hazard, an indication of a medical emergency of a passenger in the vehicle, and/or an indication that the vehicle is stopped”; i.e., the vehicle receive emergency/urgency message from other vehicle );
Zhang and Ferone both teach a control system for vehicle platooning and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the vehicle to vehicle communication for urgent/emergency message taught by Ferone in the system of Zhang to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order “to combat latency issues” (Ferone, 0030).
Zhang and Ferone combination does not explicitly teach:
a travel control unit that controls the operation of the vehicle based on the control information when the emergency information acquisition unit does not acquire the emergency information, and that controls the operation of the vehicle so as to execute emergency operation when the emergency information acquisition unit acquires the emergency information.
Sato, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a travel control unit that controls the operation of the vehicle based on the control information when the emergency information acquisition unit does not acquire the emergency information, and that controls the operation of the vehicle so as to execute emergency operation when the emergency information acquisition unit acquires the emergency information (Sato, 0002 – 0003, “when a driving condition of the vehicle deviates from a system limit … When a collision with another vehicle is predicted, emergency avoidance control (EM: Emergency Maneuver), such as emergency braking (AEB: Autonomous Emergency Braking), is activated”; Zhang and Ferone combination teaches a platooning system that controls operation of each vehicle through a centralized server while maintain vehicle to vehicle communication for urgent/emergency situation. Sato teaches that when urgent/emergency situation happens, the vehicle operates under emergency operation mode. The combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitation).
Zhang and Ferone combination and Sato both teach autonomous/assisted control system for vehicle and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the emergency operation procedure taught by Sato in the system of Zhang and Ferone combination to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to “support save driving” (Sato, 0002).
Claim 2. Zhang, Ferone and Sato combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: the emergency information acquisition unit acquires the emergency information from a vehicle that travels ahead in the convoy (refer to the mapping in Claim 1, & Ferone, Fig. 2, & 0044, “One or more sensors 112 are configured to detect a light pattern from an adjacent vehicle … e.g., in front of or behind the vehicle 105”).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 1
Claim 3. Zhang, Ferone and Sato combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: comprising a transmission unit that transmits the emergency information to a vehicle that travels behind in the convoy when the emergency information acquisition unit acquires the emergency information (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Ferone, Fig. 2 & 0033, “control the vehicle 102 in response to receiving communications from surrounding vehicles”; 0055 – 0061, “communication between vehicle 203 (which can be a source vehicle) and vehicle 102 (which can also be an endpoint vehicle”, “source vehicle 102 can communicate with the endpoint vehicle 204 via the system 100”; 0031, “The message being communicated can be associated with the vehicle light that is generating the light pattern ( e.g., a brake light-generated message indicating why or how fast a vehicle is braking, a head light-generated message indicating a rear-approaching emergency vehicle, a turn signal light-generated message indicating why the vehicle is changing lanes or that there is a hazard in a particular direction, a hazard light-generated message indicating why the vehicle's hazard lights are on, etc.”; Zhang, Ferone and Sato combination teaches a vehicle (102) that receives emergency/urgent braking/stop message from a front side vehicle (203), control the vehicle in respond to the message, in this case emergency slow down or change lane, and its indicator lights becomes the communication signal to the following vehicle (204).).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 1.
Claim 5 is the corresponding method claim of Claim1 and thus rejected with the same reason.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferone et al., (hereinafter Ferone), in view of Zhang et al., (hereinafter Zhang), WO2018000386.
Claim 4. Ferone teaches: A notification device mounted on a vehicle that travels in a convoy, the notification device comprising: an emergency situation detection unit that detects occurrence of an emergency situation; and an emergency information output unit that outputs emergency information that indicates the occurrence of the emergency situation to a different vehicle that travels in the convoy (Ferone, fig. 2 & 0030, “To combat latency issues, a lead vehicle in a platoon (convoy) may use its external lights and/or non-visible lights to communicate messages via a light pattern to a following vehicle”; 0012, “The first light emitter can be a hazard light, and the message can include … an indication of an upcoming road hazard”, i.e., the system detects/determines an emergency/hazard situation ahead and output light signals that contains emergency information to the following vehicle in the convoy.)
Ferone does not explicitly teach:
vehicle that travels in the convoy based on external control from a server.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
vehicle that travels in the convoy based on external control from a server (Zhang, fig. 5 – 8, & translation page 24 – 25, “centralized control device (server) may control the timing at which the second vehicle starts shifting, the acceleration of the shift, the time required to complete the shift, and the like, thereby controlling the second vehicle”; i.e., the convoy is controlled/operated based on a server).
Ferone and Zhang both teach a control system for vehicle platooning and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the detail implementation/management of platooning taught by Zhang in the system of Ferone to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to manage the fleet and reduce traffic accident (Zhang, translation page 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Nemoto, US20220219714, which teaches a convoy system that each vehicle detects anomaly behaviors of other vehicle and send notification to the abnormal vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, HITESH PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights