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 .
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new rejection was made necessitated by the applicant’s IDS.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
The applicant claims that no reference in the prior art provides a negotiation between two vehicles. This is identified in the specification as originally filed in page 9 as a trajectory that is PLANNED and then which can be FINISHED or CANCELLED or in PRIGRESS and this can be changed by the actors.
This negotiation between two vehicles is believed to be shown in NISTER. One vehicle will be stationary and not moving. The second vehicle will then tell the vehicle to move else the second vehicle will move. See Fig. 1 and paragraph 53, 56-60 where each of the autonomous vehicles has a yield planning block 158 that can provide a pre limiting condition 150 to the behavior planning block 140 and see paragraph 62 where if the contender vehicle and the vehicle are both stopped a future prediction of motion is used and if the second contender vehicle does not move then the vehicle will move forward and see paragraph 63 where there can be a negotiation of motion forward by the two vehicles and in paragraph 20, 94 the contender can be a drone where the vehicle can slow down and then allow the second vehicle to move unless the contender is not moving to pass and then the vehicle will move.
This meets the definition sending signals between two vehicles to get some action. This is identified in the specification as originally filed in page 9 as a trajectory that is PLANNED and then which can be FINISHED or CANCELLED or in PRIGRESS and this can be changed by the actors.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of FARJON with the teachings of NISTER et al of NVIDIA with a reasonable expectation of success since NISTER teaches each controller can include a yield planning block 159. This can allow a first drone (see paragraph 21) to pass or it can negotiate a yielding situation. See paragraph 59-65 of NISTER. This can apply to drone and air vehicles. See paragraph 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 and 12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20130325306A1 to Caveney assigned to Toyota.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
780
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, 11 and 12, CAVENEY discloses “...1 A method of coordinating one or more maneuvers among vehicles having computing devices, the method comprising: - planning at an initiating vehicle, a proposed coordinated maneuver sequence that involves the initiating vehicle computing device and one or more remote vehicle computing devices; (see FIG. 8m blocks 802-812 and FIG. 6 where a coordinated 6 vehicle merge is provided with an optimization for speed, trajectory and conflicts and moving by constant v2v messages)
- transmitting a request message from the initiating vehicle computing device to the one
or more remote vehicle computing devices, the request message including information
specifying the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence; (see paragraph 135-147 and claims 1-4 where 6 vehicles can communicate with each other for a coordinated move sequence for a six car merging and where 2 vehicles are not coordinating at all but the 4 are coordinating and exchanging messages via V2v messages for the x. y position and where an assumed trajectory is provided and a conflict is also provided and then an optimization problem is provided to adjust the constraints such that the optimization problem is run and the conflicts are avoided and the variables in paragraph 82 can be adjusted and where the first vehicle is merging and the second stays in the left lane and the third and fourth and fifth all are controlled to the left lane while the last vehicle is in the right lane)
- obtaining a response message by the initiating vehicle computing device, wherein the (see claim 16)
response message indicates whether the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is (see paragraph 160 where 100 percent v2v messages are exchanged between all vehicles)
acceptable for the one or more remote vehicle computing devices;
wherein one of the following options a or b applies:
a the response message includes a counter-proposal indicating a counter-proposal coordinated maneuver sequence that is acceptable for the one or more remote vehicle computing devices, in case the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence (see claims 1-9 where if there are conflicts and a crash is likely the optimization problem can recalculate the trajectory for those conflicts and adjust the speed and trajectory and smoothness to adjust the constraints based on the terminal state constraints and classification)
is not acceptable for at least one of the one or more remote vehicle computing devices,
wherein the counter-proposal coordinated maneuver sequence is different than the
proposed coordinated maneuver sequence; or
b a maneuver status message is transmitted to involved remote vehicle computing device(s), the maneuver status message indicating that the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is planned in response to the initiating vehicle computing device obtaining one or more affirmative response messages indicating that the proposed
coordinated maneuver sequence is acceptable for all involved of the one or more remote vehicle computing devices”. ( see paragraph 140-147 during RHC iteration 8 (3.5 to 4.0 sec), Car 1 computes a nominal lane-changing maneuver, and two new conflicts arise: A type 24 conflict with Car 2 (which requires Car 2 to resolve, and it does), and a type 22 conflict with non-coordinating Car-1. Resolving task 22 requires Car 1 to merge while slowing down behind Car-1, for which an alternative optimization problem is run. The problem is like the OCP, except there are no move-suppression constraints, and x(tk+T) is bounded in inequality constraints, instead of being set equal to xdes in an equality constraint. The need for Car 1 to merge while slowing down behind Car-1 persists until RHC iteration 18, at which time the resolved conflict is removed from the log.)
CAVENEY discloses “...17. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the request message is directed from the initiating vehicle computing device directly to the one or more remote vehicle computing devices”. (see paragraph 163).
CAVENEY discloses 18. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the request message is directed from the initiating vehicle computing device to an intermediate transceiver and from there to the one or more remote vehicle computing devices. (see paragraph 163 where the signals can come from a vehicle centric local network near the vehicle or a server)
CAVENEY discloses 19. (New) The method of claim 18, wherein the planning of the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence involves data processing that is performed by a computing device of the intermediate transceiver. (see paragraph 163 where the signals can come from a vehicle centric local network near the vehicle or a server)
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150134150A1 to Farjon that was filed in 2021 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20170309192A1 to Robin that was filed in 2016 and assigned to AIRBUS™ and in view of United States Patent No.: US11017665B1 to Roy that was filed in 2019 (hereinafter “Roy”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210253128A1 to Nister that was filed in 2021 and assigned to NVIDIA™.
PNG
media_image3.png
802
1076
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Nister teaches “...
— planning at an initiating vehicle, a proposed coordinated maneuver sequence that involves the initiating vehicle computing device and a-one or more remote vehicle computing devices;
— transmitting a request message from the initiating vehicle computing device to the one or more remote vehicle computing devices, the request message including information specifying the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence;
— obtaining a response message by the initiating vehicle computing device, wherein the response message indicates whether the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is
acceptable for the one or more remote vehicle computing devices; wherein one of the following options a or b applies:
a the response message includes a counter-proposal indicating a counter-proposal coordinated maneuver sequence that is acceptable for the one or more remote vehicle computing devices, in case the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is not acceptable for at least one of the one or more remote vehicle computing devices, wherein the counter-proposal coordinated maneuver sequence is different than the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence; or..” (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 53, 56-60 where each of the autonomous vehicles has a yield planning block 158 that can provide a pre limiting condition 150 to the behavior planning block 140 and see paragraph 62 where if the contender vehicle and the vehicle are both stopped a future prediction of motion is used and if the second contender vehicle does not move then the vehicle will move forward and see paragraph 63 where there can be a negotiation of motion forward by the two vehicles and in paragraph 20, 94 the contender can be a drone where the vehicle can slow down and then allow the second vehicle to move unless the contender is not moving to pass and then the vehicle will move)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of FARJON with the teachings of NISTER et al of NVIDIA with a reasonable expectation of success since NISTER teaches each controller can include a yield planning block 159. This can allow a first drone (see paragraph 21) to pass or it can negotiate a yielding situation. See paragraph 59-65 of NISTER. This can apply to drone and air vehicles. See paragraph 20.
PNG
media_image4.png
798
1313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, and 11-12, Farjon discloses “...1. (Currently Amended) A method of coordinating one or more maneuvers among vehicles having computing devices, the method comprising: (see paragraph 38 and FIG. 2 where the drone has indicated that an intruder aircraft has been detected and there is a risk of collision and an avoidance path is provided or a resolution advisory is provided and then am avoidance maneuver is undertaken and a control signal is provided; see blocks 21-32)
- planning a coordinated maneuver sequence that involves an initiating vehicle computing device and a remote vehicle computing device; and . (see line intersecting at point a in FIG. 4 and see FIG. 5 where the risk of collision is determined and an avoidance path is provided in block 28 and an avoidance maneuver is provided in block 29).”
PNG
media_image5.png
738
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Robin teaches “planning at an initiating vehicle computing device, a coordinated maneuver sequence that involves the initiating vehicle computing device and a remote vehicle computing device and transmitting a request message from the initiating vehicle computing device to the remote vehicle computing device ”. (see FIG. 9 where the planning vehicle can provide a message to a second and a third vehicle to move along the directions b2 and b0 to avoid a collision along the path E with the vehicle Ac1 which then moves along path B1 and see paragraph 99-128)
Farjon discloses “..- transmitting a request message to the remote vehicle computing device, the request message including information specifying the coordinated maneuver sequence. (see FIG. 4 where the first aircraft has a location and a heading and the second air craft has a location and a heading and the two headings intersection at location a and a collision is going to result)(see claims 8-10 and paragraph 5 where a vertical and horizontal speed is provided for the collision prediction) (see paragraph 5-6 where the climb can provide an avoidance) (See paragraph 26-29 where a risk is determined that there is going to be a collision and an avoidance is provided; see paragraph 36 where there is a avoidance path so the aircraft can have space to avoid the collision)
PNG
media_image6.png
802
1010
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Farjon is silent but Roy teaches “... — obtaining a response message by the initiating vehicle computing device, wherein the response message indicates whether the coordinated maneuver sequence is acceptable for the remote vehicle computing device; (see FIG. 6 where the first vehicle can ask to pass the second vehicle in front of the first vehicle for a payment and where a message is provided to an offer and the second vehicle can make a counter offer and then pay and then transfer funds and then the first vehicle can pass the second vehicle and all other vehicles in front to arrive at the destination sooner)
PNG
media_image7.png
744
1098
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein one of the following options a or b applies:
a the response message includes a counter-proposal indicating a coordinated maneuver sequence that is acceptable for the remote vehicle computing device, in case the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is not acceptable for the remote vehicle computing device; or (see Fig. 30 where the second vehicle will not allow any passing unless the rate is 200 percent of the offer rate of the first vehicle for allowing the first vehicle to move in front of the second vehicle and if this is not paid then no merge will occur; A multiplier of +100% means that the vehicle is programmed to offer market price. A multiplier of −100% means the vehicle is programmed to accept market price. A multiplier of +150% means that the vehicle is programmed to make an offer (or accept a counteroffer) equal to 1.5 times the market price. A multiplier of −150% means that the vehicle is programmed to only accept an offer equal or greater to 1.5 times the market price. The market price may be determined by historical data for a given place and time. The user-configurable parameters are provided for different traffic maneuvers or events. In this exemplary database, the traffic events are city passing, highway passing, prioritizing who goes first at a stop sign, prioritizing who gets a parking place, and merging into traffic (e.g. entering a highway from an onramp, changing lanes, etc.).)
PNG
media_image8.png
778
888
media_image8.png
Greyscale
b a maneuver status message is transmitted to the involved remote vehicle computing devices, the maneuver status message indicating that the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is planned in response to the initiating vehicle computing device obtaining one or more affirmative response messages indicating that the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is acceptable for all involved of the one or more remote vehicle(s) computing device: (see FIG. 17 where the first vehicle can pay the second vehicle and then move into an incoming lane to pass in front of the second vehicle after paying 11 dollars and where the second vehicle can yield and move over and pull over to allow the safe passing by the requesting car; FIG. 17 is an example of a requesting car 10 negotiating via V2V messages 11 with an oncoming car 10 a to request that the oncoming car 10 a slow down to enable the requesting car 10 to pass another vehicle directly ahead of it by temporarily entering the lane of the oncoming car 10 a. In a variant, the requesting car 10 also notifies and/or negotiates with the vehicle directly ahead of it to ensure that this vehicle does not accelerate, change lanes or perform some action that would affect the safe passing by the requesting car.)
PNG
media_image9.png
762
1046
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(see FIG. 6 where once the funds are transferred then the coordinated maneuver is initiated from the receiving vehicle to the requesting vehicle)”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of ROY with the disclosure of Farjon with a reasonable expectation of success since ROY teaches that that a first vehicle can transmit an offer to move over and where a second vehicle can be ordered to pull over in exchange for a fee to the shoulder and where the first vehicle who is paying can pass the second vehicle. The second vehicle can provide a counter proposal that they will move over in a coordinated manner but they need a 200 percent payment of the offer. The first vehicle can decline and ask a third vehicle to move over for the fee and then the third vehicle can move over and yield so the first vehicle can arrive at the destination in a more rapid manner. See col. 8, lines 1-35 of Roy.
PNG
media_image10.png
947
801
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Farjon discloses “...2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the planning takes into account knowledge on maneuver capabilities of the one or more remote vehicle computing device”. (see FIG. 2 where the first vehicle can determine if the intruder aircraft has an TCAS II system and if not then an avoidance path is taken and an avoidance maneuver; and if they do have a capability to have a TCAS system the first vehicle will wait and then receive a resolution advisory message in blocks 27-31)
Farjon discloses “..3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
- receiving the request message at the one or more remote vehicle computing device; and - evaluating the information included in the request message as to whether the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence is acceptable. (see FIG. 2 where based on the risk of the collision the angular speed is measured and then where the first vehicle can determine if the intruder aircraft has an TCAS II system and if not then an avoidance path is taken and an avoidance maneuver; and if they do have a capability to have a TCAS system the first vehicle will wait and then receive a resolution advisory message in blocks 27-31 and a path is determined and then an avoidance is made that is coordinated at paragraph 33 where if this resolution advisory RA includes an order for the intruder aircraft 10 to climb, the avoidance path determined by the data analysis system 4 is to descent (step 33).)
Claim 4 and 5 are cancelled.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150134150A1 to Farjon that was filed in 2021 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180227729A1 to Bai that was filed in 2015 and in view of Robin and in view of Roy and in view of Nister.
The primary reference is silent but Bai teaches “...6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 4, wherein the method further comprises, in response to the initiating vehicle computing device receiving a response message indicating that the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence 1s not acceptable for at least one of the remote vehicle computing devices:
- planning a counter proposal coordinated maneuver sequence that involves the initiating vehicle computing device and said remote vehicle computing vehicle and/or one or several other remote vehicle(s) computing devices; and(see paragraph 47-48 where a cooperative vehicle can provide a suggested maneuver and this can be declined and partially declined based on a detected obstacle in the path of the second vehicle; )
- transmitting an updated request message to the remote vehicle(s) computing device involved in the counter proposal coordinated maneuver sequence, the updated request message including information specifying the counter proposal coordinated maneuver sequence. (See paragraph 55 where a second maneuver is provided and the dangerous maneuver is provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Bai with the disclosure of Farjon with a reasonable expectation of success since Bai teaches that a cooperative control of two vehicles can be provided which can be accepted based on safety or declined if there is a risk of collision based on an obstacle. This provides improved precision in that the move can be declined if there is an obstacle. See paragraph 47-50 of Bai.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
The primary reference is silent as to but Bai teaches “...8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
- transmitting one or more status messages between the vehicles computing device involved in the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence, each status message indicating to the receiving end a respective status of the maneuvers of the proposed coordinated maneuver sequence at the sending end. (see paragraph 41-42 where the response from the second vehicle is accepted and status messages of 1. Timing 2. Maneuver 3. Velocity, 4. Acceleration 5. Path, following distance and target acceleration and distance for coordinated driving).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Bai with the disclosure of Farjon with a reasonable expectation of success since Bai teaches that a cooperative control of two vehicles can be provided which can be accepted based on safety or declined if there is a risk of collision based on an obstacle. This provides improved precision in that the move can be declined if there is an obstacle. See paragraph 47-50 of Bai.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150134150A1 to Farjon that was filed in 2021 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180227729A1 to Bai that was filed in 2015 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20160107653A1 to Fung and in view of Roy and Nister.
Fung teaches “...9. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting a feedback message in response to receiving a status message”. (see claims 28-34 where the second user can provide a modified control based on the level of drowsiness of the driver of the first vehicle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of FUNG with the disclosure of Farjon with a reasonable expectation of success since FUNG teaches that a cooperative control of two vehicles can be provided which can be accepted based on safety or declined. However, it also provides feedback if the driver of the first vehicle is drowsy. The second vehicle can receive this feedback for safe operation for further control of the second vehicle. See claims 28-34 and the abstract.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150134150A1 to Farjon that was filed in 2021 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180227729A1 to Bai that was filed in 2015 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20160107653A1 to Fung and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180309592A1 to Stolfus that was filed in 2018 and Roy and in view of Nister.
Stolfus teaches “...10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein the feedback message repeats the content of the received status message”. (See paragraph 134 where based on a situation that includes a detected turbulence from a truck then the message can be repeated to vehicles in the proximity to the event).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of STOLFUS with the disclosure of Farjon with a reasonable expectation of success since STOLFUS teaches that a turbulence can be detected from a truck. For these vehicles the message can be repeated. This can ensure the message is received.
Farjon discloses “.13. (Currently Amended) A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out the steps as specified in claim 1”. (see paragraph 38 and FIG. 2 where the drone has indicated that an intruder aircraft has been detected and there is a risk of collision and an avoidance path is provided or a resolution advisory is provided and then am avoidance maneuver is undertaken and a control signal is provided; see blocks 21-32) . (see line intersecting at point a in FIG. 4 and see FIG. 5 where the risk of collision is determined and an avoidance path is provided in block 28 and an avoidance maneuver is provided in block 29) . (see FIG. 4 where the first aircraft has a location and a heading and the second air craft has a location and a heading and the two headings intersection at location a and a collision is going to result)(see claims 8-10 and paragraph 5 where a vertical and horizontal speed is provided for the collision prediction) (see paragraph 5-6 where the climb can provide an avoidance) (See paragraph 26-29 where a risk is determined that there is going to be a collision and an avoidance is provided; see paragraph 36 where there is a avoidance path so the aircraft can have space to avoid the collision)
Farjon discloses “...14. (Currently Amended) A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out the steps as specified in claim 1. (see paragraph 38 and FIG. 2 where the drone has indicated that an intruder aircraft has been detected and there is a risk of collision and an avoidance path is provided or a resolution advisory is provided and then am avoidance maneuver is undertaken and a control signal is provided; see blocks 21-32) . (see line intersecting at point a in FIG. 4 and see FIG. 5 where the risk of collision is determined and an avoidance path is provided in block 28 and an avoidance maneuver is provided in block 29) . (see FIG. 4 where the first aircraft has a location and a heading and the second air craft has a location and a heading and the two headings intersection at location a and a collision is going to result)(see claims 8-10 and paragraph 5 where a vertical and horizontal speed is provided for the collision prediction) (see paragraph 5-6 where the climb can provide an avoidance) (See paragraph 26-29 where a risk is determined that there is going to be a collision and an avoidance is provided; see paragraph 36 where there is a avoidance path so the aircraft can have space to avoid the collision)”.
Farjon discloses “...15. (Original) A data carrier signal carrying the computer program of claim 14. (see paragraph 38 and FIG. 2 where the drone has indicated that an intruder aircraft has been detected and there is a risk of collision and an avoidance path is provided or a resolution advisory is provided and then am avoidance maneuver is undertaken and a control signal is provided; see blocks 21-32) . (see line intersecting at point a in FIG. 4 and see FIG. 5 where the risk of collision is determined and an avoidance path is provided in block 28 and an avoidance maneuver is provided in block 29) . (see FIG. 4 where the first aircraft has a location and a heading and the second air craft has a location and a heading and the two headings intersection at location a and a collision is going to result)(see claims 8-10 and paragraph 5 where a vertical and horizontal speed is provided for the collision prediction) (see paragraph 5-6 where the climb can provide an avoidance) (See paragraph 26-29 where a risk is determined that there is going to be a collision and an avoidance is provided; see paragraph 36 where there is a avoidance path so the aircraft can have space to avoid the collision)”.
Robin teaches “16.The method of claim 1 wherein the planning the transmitting are operated at a computing device” (see FIG. 1 and 9 where the planning vehicle can provide a message to a second and a third vehicle to move along the directions b2 and b0 to avoid a collision along the path E with the vehicle Ac1 which then moves along path B1 and see paragraph 99-128) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of FARJON with the teachings of ROBIN with a reasonable expectation of success since ROBIN teaches that a first and a second and a third vehicle can communicate with each other to plan a coordinated avoidance maneuver with each other. One aircraft can agree while another can disagree with the paths. A second message can be provided and the avoidance can be made with safety well before a collision is possible. See claims 1-14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668