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 communication is in response to applicant’s filing dated 01/23/2026. Claims 6, 8 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 7 and 13-17 have been canceled. Claims 6 and 8-12 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. DE102019216380.7, filed on 10/24/2019.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/23/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 6 and 8-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims reciting an exception, this exception is integrated into a practical application because the claims include additional elements that are an improvement to technology, are withdrawn. For those reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 01/23/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6, Applicant argues that Stache does not teach (i) parallel transmission of signals from a vehicle to an external processing apparatus, and (ii) transmissions occurring within one second of each other. Applicant further argues there is no motivation to modify Stache and that any such modification would rely on hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stache discloses determining vehicle movement/trajectory information (See, e.g., ¶22). While Applicant asserts the information is retained within the vehicle, Stache does not exclude transmission of such data. The determination of trajectory data in a vehicle system reasonably suggests communication to other systems for processing, coordination, or control. As set forth in the rejection, Fuchs discloses communicating trajectory-related information. The combination of Stache’s trajectory determination with Fuchs communication teachings results in transmitting vehicle trajectory data to external processing entity. Combining known trajectory generation with known communication mechanisms constitutes the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Applicant contends the references are silent regarding parallel transmissions within one second of each other. The claims recite transmitting signals in parallel, with outputs occurring within one second of each other. The cited art traches generating trajectory-related data and communicating such data. Configuring related transmissions to occur substantially concurrently, including within a defined latency window, amounts to selecting an implementation parameter governing timing and synchronization. A one-second window represents a broad temporal range consistent with ordinary vehicular communication latencies. No criticality for the one-second limitation has been demonstrated.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claim 12.
For at least the above, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolaj Stache, DE102014223620 A1, in view of Fuchs et al., US 20210146922 A1, hereinafter referred to as Stache and Fuchs, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Stache discloses a method for execution by a communication apparatus of a first vehicle or an infrastructure device, having the steps of:
outputting a planned trajectory of the first vehicle by a mobile radio interface of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device to be received by a processing apparatus, the processing apparatus being external to the first vehicle (It is also possible that the first vehicle determines the path of movement itself. The movement path can be determined retrospectively. This means that the data is collected and temporarily stored in the first vehicle, and after collecting a data set, the movement path is determined – See at least ¶22. In this case, the movement path can be transmitted from the first vehicle to the central processing unit, and/or the detected roadway state data can be transmitted – See at least ¶35 and FIG. 1).
Stache fails to explicitly disclose in parallel with outputting a planned trajectory of the first vehicle by a mobile radio interface, outputting the planned trajectory by a communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle and/or the infrastructure device to be received by a second vehicle, wherein the parallel outputting occurs within one second of each other, receiving a planned trajectory of a second vehicle by the processing device using the mobile radio interface, transmitting the planned trajectory of the second vehicle to a maneuver planning device of the first vehicle in order to determine and initiate measures for overcoming the potential safety-critical traffic situation by outputting electronic signals to a vehicle device or system that implements a direct intervention in or controls the vehicle dynamics of the first vehicle.
However, Fuchs teaches:
in parallel with outputting a planned trajectory of the first vehicle by a mobile radio interface, outputting the planned trajectory by a communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle and/or the infrastructure device to be received by a second vehicle, wherein the parallel outputting occurs within one second of each other (When maneuvers between vehicles are coordinated to increase comfort, efficiency and safety, among other things, this may be called cooperative driving. This is facilitated by the possibility of direct vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V), (i.e. parallel outputting) and the increasing automation of vehicles – See at least ¶47. Trajectories may be represented as a sequence of location points or discrete or continuous distributions over time, or parametrically as a graph dependent on time, e.g. in the form of a polynomial or a clothoid or a flow of a discrete or continuous distribution – See at least ¶49. When cooperating from the point of view of the party requiring cooperation, the first vehicle determines, based on the trajectory cluster received from the second vehicle, that its reference trajectory, i.e. its current trajectory, as well as its demand trajectories are not feasible because they collide with the priority reference trajectory of the second vehicle. Due to the collision of the reference trajectories, the first vehicle recognizes that it is necessary to adjust its reference trajectory and therefore is in need of cooperation and that it is necessary to communicate this – See at least ¶92),
receiving a planned trajectory of a second vehicle by the processing apparatus using the mobile radio interface (When cooperating from the point of view of the party requiring cooperation, the first vehicle determines, based on the trajectory cluster received from the second vehicle, that its reference trajectory, i.e. its current trajectory, as well as its demand trajectories are not feasible because they collide with the priority reference trajectory of the second vehicle. Due to the collision of the reference trajectories, the first vehicle recognizes that it is necessary to adjust its reference trajectory and therefore is in need of cooperation and that it is necessary to communicate this – See at least ¶92),
transmitting the planned trajectory of the second vehicle to a maneuver planning device of the first vehicle in order to determine and initiate measures for overcoming the potential safety-critical traffic situation by outputting electronic signals to a vehicle device or system that implements a direct intervention in or controls the vehicle dynamics of the first vehicle (For at least one fellow trajectory a category may be received. The reference trajectory may also be selected using the category. Alternatively or additionally, a category may be transmitted for at least one of the trajectories. In the fellow vehicle, the fellow reference trajectory may be selected using the category. A category may be an additional information on a trajectory. For example, exceptional situations may be indicated by using categories. For example, a trajectory may be classified as an emergency trajectory. The emergency trajectory may be forced upon the vehicle by external constraints, for example due to a defect, an emergency or an evasive maneuver – See at least ¶32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Stache and include the feature of as well as outputting the planned trajectory by a communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle and/or the infrastructure device to be received by a second vehicle, as taught by Fuchs, to provide a routing message representing its planned route to enable improved route planning for other vehicles (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 8, Stache as modified discloses the method of claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated.
Stache as modified does not explicitly disclose receiving a directly transmitted vehicle-to-X message from the second vehicle, - outputting, by the mobile radio interface, to be received by the processing apparatus, information announcing that a forwarding between the first vehicle and the second vehicle or the infrastructure device and the second vehicle by the processing device is no longer required.
However, Fuchs discloses receiving a directly transmitted vehicle-to-X message from the second vehicle, - outputting, by the mobile radio interface, to be received by the processing apparatus, information announcing that a forwarding between the first vehicle and the second vehicle or the infrastructure device and the second vehicle by the processing device is no longer required (The described calculation process from the first stage and, if necessary, the second stage is carried out over several transmission cycles, if applicable, until the reference trajectory of the first vehicle no longer collides with the reference trajectories of other vehicles in the area relevant for the planned maneuver and may thus be driven – See at least ¶102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Stache and include the feature of receiving a directly transmitted vehicle-to-X message from the second vehicle, - outputting, by the mobile radio interface, to be received by the processing apparatus, information announcing that a forwarding between the first vehicle and the second vehicle or the infrastructure device and the second vehicle by the processing device is no longer required, as taught by Fuchs, to provide a routing message representing its planned route to enable improved route planning for other vehicles (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 9, Stache discloses outputting environmental information of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device, captured by sensors, by the mobile radio interface of the first vehicle, as well as - outputting the environmental information captured by sensors by the communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle and/or the infrastructure device (In the first step, collecting road condition data, a first vehicle determines the condition of the road surface using appropriate sensors. For example, the vehicle is equipped with a laser scanning device, an ultrasonic scanning device, a radar scanning device, or a camera device, for example a stereo camera device – See at least ¶9).
Regarding claim 10, Stache as modified discloses the method of claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated.
Stache as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a collective perception message comprises the environmental information output by the communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device.
However, Fuchs teaches wherein a collective perception message comprises the environmental information output by the communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device (When cooperating from the point of view of the party requiring cooperation, the first vehicle determines, based on the trajectory cluster received from the second vehicle, that its reference trajectory, i.e. its current trajectory, as well as its demand trajectories are not feasible because they collide with the priority reference trajectory of the second vehicle. Due to the collision of the reference trajectories, the first vehicle recognizes that it is necessary to adjust its reference trajectory and therefore is in need of cooperation and that it is necessary to communicate this – See at least ¶92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Stache and include the feature of wherein a collective perception message comprises the environmental information output by the communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device, as taught by Fuchs, to provide a routing message representing its planned route to enable improved route planning for other vehicles (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 11, Stache discloses wherein at least one proposed trajectory and at least one alternative trajectory are in each case output by the mobile radio interface of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device as well as by the communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device (In the first step, collecting road condition data, a first vehicle determines the condition of the road surface using appropriate sensors. For example, the vehicle is equipped with a laser scanning device, an ultrasonic scanning device, a radar scanning device, or a camera device, for example a stereo camera device – See at least ¶9).
Regarding claim 12, Stache discloses a method for preventing a potential safety-critical traffic situation between a first vehicle and a second vehicle, having the steps of:
outputting a planned trajectory of the first vehicle by a mobile radio interface of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device to be received by a processing apparatus, the processing apparatus being external to the first vehicle (It is also possible that the first vehicle determines the path of movement itself. The movement path can be determined retrospectively. This means that the data is collected and temporarily stored in the first vehicle, and after collecting a data set, the movement path is determined – See at least ¶22. In this case, the movement path can be transmitted from the first vehicle to the central processing unit, and/or the detected roadway state data can be transmitted – See at least ¶35 and FIG. 1),
receiving the planned trajectory of the first vehicle by the processing apparatus (According to a further embodiment of the invention, the movement path is transmitted from the central processing unit to the second vehicle – See at least ¶24).
Stache fails to explicitly disclose in parallel with outputting a planned trajectory of the first vehicle by a mobile radio interface, outputting the planned trajectory by a communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle and/or the infrastructure device to be received by a second vehicle, wherein the parallel outputting occurs within one second of each other, evaluating the planned trajectory of the first vehicle relative to a received planned trajectory of the second vehicle with respect to a potential safety- critical situation by a computing device of the processing apparatus and, if a potential safety-critical situation is detected - outputting the planned trajectory of the second vehicle to be received by the first vehicle or the infrastructure device by an outputting device suitable for communicating via a mobile radio network - receiving the planned trajectory of the second vehicle by the mobile radio interface of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device, and transmitting the planned trajectory of the second vehicle to a maneuver planning device of the first vehicle in order to determine and initiate measures for overcoming the potential safety-critical traffic situation by outputting electronic signals to a vehicle device or system that implements a direct intervention in or controls the vehicle dynamics of the first vehicle by outputting signals to implement a direct intervention in the vehicle dynamics of the first vehicle.
However, Fuchs teaches:
in parallel with outputting a planned trajectory of the first vehicle by a mobile radio interface, outputting the planned trajectory by a communication interface designed for direct vehicle-to-X communication of the first vehicle and/or the infrastructure device to be received by a second vehicle, wherein the parallel outputting occurs within one second of each other (When maneuvers between vehicles are coordinated to increase comfort, efficiency and safety, among other things, this may be called cooperative driving. This is facilitated by the possibility of direct vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V), (i.e. parallel outputting) and the increasing automation of vehicles – See at least ¶47. Trajectories may be represented as a sequence of location points or discrete or continuous distributions over time, or parametrically as a graph dependent on time, e.g. in the form of a polynomial or a clothoid or a flow of a discrete or continuous distribution – See at least ¶49. When cooperating from the point of view of the party requiring cooperation, the first vehicle determines, based on the trajectory cluster received from the second vehicle, that its reference trajectory, i.e. its current trajectory, as well as its demand trajectories are not feasible because they collide with the priority reference trajectory of the second vehicle. Due to the collision of the reference trajectories, the first vehicle recognizes that it is necessary to adjust its reference trajectory and therefore is in need of cooperation and that it is necessary to communicate this – See at least ¶92);
evaluating the planned trajectory of the first vehicle relative to a received planned trajectory of the second vehicle with respect to a potential safety- critical situation by a computing device of the processing apparatus and, if a potential safety-critical situation is detected - outputting the planned trajectory of the second vehicle to be received by the first vehicle or the infrastructure device by an outputting device suitable for communicating via a mobile radio network (A tuple consists of at least two trajectories. The trajectories of a tuple are part of different trajectory sets of different vehicles. Thus the trajectories of the tuple start from different points. The trajectories of the tuple may intersect. If the different vehicles reach the intersection of the trajectories at different times, then the tuple is considered collision free if the vehicles are at least a minimum distance apart at all times – See at least ¶22),
receiving the planned trajectory of the second vehicle by the mobile radio interface of the first vehicle or the infrastructure device (When cooperating from the point of view of the party requiring cooperation, the first vehicle determines, based on the trajectory cluster received from the second vehicle, that its reference trajectory, i.e. its current trajectory, as well as its demand trajectories are not feasible because they collide with the priority reference trajectory of the second vehicle. Due to the collision of the reference trajectories, the first vehicle recognizes that it is necessary to adjust its reference trajectory and therefore is in need of cooperation and that it is necessary to communicate this – See at least ¶92), and
transmitting the planned trajectory of the second vehicle to a maneuver planning device of the first vehicle in order to determine and initiate measures for overcoming the potential safety-critical traffic situation by outputting electronic signals to a vehicle device or system that implements a direct intervention in or controls the vehicle dynamics of the first vehicle by outputting signals to implement a direct intervention in the vehicle dynamics of the first vehicle (For at least one fellow trajectory a category may be received. The reference trajectory may also be selected using the category. Alternatively or additionally, a category may be transmitted for at least one of the trajectories. In the fellow vehicle, the fellow reference trajectory may be selected using the category. A category may be an additional information on a trajectory. For example, exceptional situations may be indicated by using categories. For example, a trajectory may be classified as an emergency trajectory. The emergency trajectory may be forced upon the vehicle by external constraints, for example due to a defect, an emergency or an evasive maneuver – See at least ¶32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Stache and include the feature of evaluating the planned trajectory of the first vehicle relative to the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical situation by a computing device of the processing apparatus and, if a potential safety-critical situation is detected, outputting the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for the purpose of outputting by an outputting device suitable for communicating via a mobile radio network, to be received by the mobile radio interface of the first vehicle or of the infrastructure device, as taught by Fuchs, to provide a routing message representing its planned route to enable improved route planning for other vehicles (See at least ¶2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Buburuzan et al., discloses A device for a vehicle for providing information about an expected driving intention, a device for a vehicle for determining a driving recommendation, a method for a vehicle for providing information about an expected driving intention, a method for a vehicle for determining a driving recommendation, and a computer program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665