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 § 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.
Claims 1,3, 5-6, 13-15, 17-18, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ahmad (US 2021/0245758) in view of Ramasamy (US 10,089,876) Vassilovski (US 2023/0058086), and Wu (US 2022/0262253)
As to claim 1 Ahmad discloses a method of vehicle maneuver coordination performed by a device of a first vehicle and comprising a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication interface, a memory, and one or more processing units communicatively coupled with the V2X communication interface, the method comprising:
determining, by the one or more processing units, a first maneuver for the
first vehicle to perform (Paragraph 36 “FIG. 2 illustrates an example situation 200 in which a vehicle intends to perform a lane change maneuver along a roadway 116 including additional vehicles. As discussed herein the vehicles V1, V2 and V3 may be vehicles 102 as discussed above with respect to FIG. 1. As shown, a main traffic participant (i.e., the vehicle V1) intends to change lanes to avoid an obstacle. The vehicle V1 may determine that V2 and V3 are relevant to its lane change.”);
determining, by the one or more processing units, a priority level corresponding to the first maneuver (Paragraph 59 “The confirmation message may include information including the maneuver ID, an identifier of the vehicle 102 sending the message, a Message type indicating that this is a confirmation message that is part of conflict resolution, and a list of inputs that the traffic participants will use in performing the conflict resolution decision, e.g., priority, urgency, deadline, etc.”); and
wirelessly transmitting, from the first vehicle by the V2X communication interface, a first request to perform the first maneuver, wherein the first request comprises information indicative (Paragraph 36 “Responsive to doing so, the vehicle V1 sends a Lane Change (LC) Intent message intended for these vehicles V2, V3. It should be noted that while the illustrated lane change is between lanes of the roadway 116, the discussion is also applicable to a lane merge situation, such as where the vehicle V1 intends to merge into a lane from an entrance or exit ramp.”) of:
the first maneuver, the priority level (Paragraph 74 “The host vehicle 102 sends an LC intent message which is responded to by the remote vehicle 102 by a NACK indicating conflict. The host vehicle 102 sends a subsequent conflict message that conveys the urgency, priority and other relevant parameters to the maneuver. Each of the host and remote vehicles 102 individually uses the same input and algorithm and determines that the host vehicle should go first. The host vehicle 102 sends a reservation message and then proceeds with lane change.”), and
a window of time in which to perform the first maneuver (Paragraph 40 “The message may also include a deadline, denoted herein by T.sub.TTM, which indicates a desired time by which the main traffic participant desires to begin the maneuver (TTM indicates Time-To-Maneuver).”).
Ahmad does not explicitly disclose wherein the priority level is based on a combination of a maneuver type associated with the determined first maneuver and a vehicle type of the first vehicle.
Ramasamy teaches wherein the priority level is based on a combination of a maneuver type associated with the determined first maneuver and a vehicle type of the first vehicle (Column 6 lines 32-38 “In this example, the request includes information about the requesting vehicle 440, such as its lane of travel, a then-present location of the vehicle, its speed, the target lane for the lane change, the make and model of the requesting vehicle 440, a priority for the request, and an acceptable minimum space needed to merge into the lane.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ahmad to include the teachings of determining the priority level based on the maneuver and vehicle type for the purpose of coordinating lane changes or maneuvers between vehicles.
Ahmad does not explicitly disclose receiving, at the first vehicle, an acceptance message form a Road Side Unit (RSU) indicating that the first request has been accepted and a second request of a second vehicle to perform a second maneuver has been denied.
Vassilovski teaches at the first vehicle, an acceptance message form a Road Side Unit (RSU) indicating that the first request has been accepted and a second request of a second vehicle to perform a second maneuver has been denied (Paragraph 7 “In one implementation, a method of performing information exchange for a driving maneuver to be executed by a maneuvering vehicle, the method performed by a Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) entity comprising one of a first device in the first vehicle or a roadside unit (RSU) in communication with the first device, includes receiving an inter-vehicle message with a driving maneuver request for a driving maneuver by the maneuvering vehicle, the inter-vehicle message comprising at least one estimated parameter for the driving maneuver comprising one or more temporal parameters, one or more spatial parameters, one or more trajectory parameters, or a combination thereof, the inter-vehicle message further comprising an indication of an estimation accuracy for the at least one estimated parameter; determining whether to grant, reject, or counter-proposal based on the at least one estimated parameter for the driving maneuver and the indication of the estimation accuracy for the at least one estimated parameter and a predicted location and motion state of the first vehicle; and transmitting a grant, a rejection, or a counter-proposal in response to the driving maneuver request.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ahmad to include the teachings of receiving an acceptance message form a road side unit for the purpose of coordinating maneuvers of the vehicles.
Ahmad does not explicitly disclose wherein the acceptance message comprises an identifier of the second vehicle and an indication that the second request conflicts with the first request within an overlapping time period.
Wu teaches wherein the acceptance message comprises an identifier of the second vehicle and an indication that the second request conflicts with the first requ4est within an overlapping time period (Paragraph 67 “A UE sending a negotiable space reservation message may monitor for a response following the message to determine whether there are any challenges/disputes from other vehicles about the reserved space. Other vehicles may determine whether to agree to the space reservation. For example, an affected vehicle may determine whether to agree to the space reservation message based on the priority level and/or reason associated with the space reservation. The UE sending a negotiable space reservation message may determine to proceed with the intended maneuver, e.g., if no challenge/dispute/rejection is received within a time window.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ahmad to include the teachings of receiving an acceptance message for the purpose of coordinating maneuvers of the vehicles.
As to claim 3 Ahmad discloses a method wherein the priority level is based on a reason for the first maneuver, a vehicle type of the first vehicle, or both (Paragraph 41).
As to claim 5 Ahmad discloses a method of vehicle maneuver coordination performed by a device comprising a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication interface, a memory, and one or more processing units communicatively coupled with the V2X communication interface and the memory, the method comprising:
wirelessly receiving, by the V2X communication interface, a first request to perform a first maneuver from a first vehicle and a second request to perform a second maneuver from a second vehicle, wherein the first request comprises information indicative of the first maneuver, a first priority level, and a first window of time in which to perform the first maneuver (Paragraph 59 “The confirmation message may include information including the maneuver ID, an identifier of the vehicle 102 sending the message, a Message type indicating that this is a confirmation message that is part of conflict resolution, and a list of inputs that the traffic participants will use in performing the conflict resolution decision, e.g., priority, urgency, deadline, etc.”),
determining, by the one or more processing units, whether to grant the first request and deny the second request based at least in part on the priority level of the first request being higher than the priority level of the second request(Paragraph 46 “In response to the LC intent message, each participating vehicle 102 may create an LC response message to be returned to the main traffic participant vehicle 102. This LC Response message may include information including the maneuver ID from the LC intent message, a vehicle identifier of the responding vehicle 102, a message type (an ACK accepting the maneuver or a NACK rejecting the maneuver indicated in the LC intent message), as well as additional information (e.g., sensor information that might be relevant to road resource and/or lane change plan of the main traffic participant vehicle 102).”); and
wirelessly sending, by the communication interface, a response indicating that the first request is granted and the second request is denied(Paragraph 46 “In response to the LC intent message, each participating vehicle 102 may create an LC response message to be returned to the main traffic participant vehicle 102. This LC Response message may include information including the maneuver ID from the LC intent message, a vehicle identifier of the responding vehicle 102, a message type (an ACK accepting the maneuver or a NACK rejecting the maneuver indicated in the LC intent message), as well as additional information (e.g., sensor information that might be relevant to road resource and/or lane change plan of the main traffic participant vehicle 102).”)
Ahmad does not explicitly disclose wherein the first priority level is based on a combination of a first maneuver type associated with the determined maneuver and a vehicle type of the first vehicle and the second priority level is based on a second combination of a second maneuver type associated with the second maneuver and a second vehicle type of the second vehicle.
Ramasamy teaches wherein the first priority level is based on a combination of a first maneuver type associated with the determined maneuver and a vehicle type of the first vehicle and the second priority level is based on a second combination of a second maneuver type associated with the second maneuver and a second vehicle type of the second vehicle. (Column 6 lines 32-38 “In this example, the request includes information about the requesting vehicle 440, such as its lane of travel, a then-present location of the vehicle, its speed, the target lane for the lane change, the make and model of the requesting vehicle 440, a priority for the request, and an acceptable minimum space needed to merge into the lane.”, Column 3 lines 26-39 “In this example, the responding vehicles 142a-b determine to allow the requesting vehicle 140 to merge into the lane ahead of responding vehicle 142b. The responding vehicles 142a-b then exchange messages to coordinate the lane change request. In this example, vehicle 142a accelerates by three miles per hour for a time until the distance between vehicle 142b and vehicle 142a is at least 50 feet. Vehicle 142b also reduces its speed by 3 miles per hour. After a period of time, the space between the vehicles 142a-b expands to at least 50 feet, at which time, one or both responding vehicles 142a-c transmit a message to the requesting vehicle 140 indicating that a space has been created between the vehicles 142a-b, and that the requesting vehicle 140 may merge into it.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ahmad to include the teachings of determining the priority level based on the maneuver and vehicle type for the purpose of coordinating lane changes or maneuvers between vehicles.
Ahmad does not explicitly disclose the second request comprises information indicative of the second maneuver, a second priority level, and a second window of time in which to perform the second maneuver
Vassilovski teaches the second request comprises information indicative of the second maneuver, a second priority level, and a second window of time in which to perform the second maneuver (Paragraph 43 “At stage 3, vehicle 104 transmits a maneuver response message to the vehicle 102, that grants, rejects or provides a counter-proposal to the maneuver request from stage 1. If the maneuver response message rejects the maneuver request from stage 1, vehicle 102 may initiate a new maneuver request. If the maneuver response message provides a counter-proposal to the maneuver request from stage 1, vehicle 102 may evaluate the counter-proposal and respond or may initiate a new maneuver request. If the maneuver response message accepts the maneuver request from stage 1, vehicle 102 may proceed with the driving maneuver, as illustrated in FIG. 5.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ahmad to include the teachings of receiving an second maneuver requests from other vehicles for the purpose of coordinating travel amongst vehicles.
Ahmad does not explicitly disclose wherein the acceptance message comprises an identifier of the second vehicle and an indication that the second request conflicts with the first request within an overlapping time period.
Wu teaches wherein the acceptance message comprises an identifier of the second vehicle and an indication that the second request conflicts with the first requ4est within an overlapping time period (Paragraph 67 “A UE sending a negotiable space reservation message may monitor for a response following the message to determine whether there are any challenges/disputes from other vehicles about the reserved space. Other vehicles may determine whether to agree to the space reservation. For example, an affected vehicle may determine whether to agree to the space reservation message based on the priority level and/or reason associated with the space reservation. The UE sending a negotiable space reservation message may determine to proceed with the intended maneuver, e.g., if no challenge/dispute/rejection is received within a time window.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ahmad to include the teachings of receiving an acceptance message for the purpose of coordinating maneuvers of the vehicles.
As to claim 6 Ahmad discloses a method wherein receiving the first request, determining whether to grant the first request, and wirelessly sending the response, are performed by a second vehicle (Paragraph 46).
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 31 Wu teaches a method wherein the maneuver type and the vehicle type are mapped to a predefined priority value according to an application-layer priority definition (Paragraph 67).
Claims 4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 2021/0245758) in view of Ramasamy (US 10,089,876) Vassilovski (US 2023/0058086), and Wu (US 2022/0262253) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Riedelsheimer (US 2016/0358479).
As to claim 4 Riedelsheimer teaches a method further comprising:
receiving, at the first vehicle, an acceptance message from a second vehicle or a Road Side Unit (RSU) (Paragraph 27); and
responsive to receiving the acceptance message, performing the maneuver with the first vehicle (Paragraph 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ahmad to include the teachings of using a road side for the purpose of communicating the maneuvering plans to different vehicles.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,3-6, 13, 15-18, 31 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
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights