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 Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/06/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 12-17; and canceled claims 9-11. Claims 1-8 and 12-17 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/06/2025 obviate said claim objections – accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 11/06/2025 have been fully considered.
As to the claim element “signal interface,” Applicant’s amendments obviate the interpretation of the foregoing under § 112(f) – accordingly, the corresponding claim interpretation under § 112(f) is withdrawn.
However, § 112(f) interpretation is maintained for the claim element “checking apparatus” – see CLAIM INTERPRETATION below.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(a),(b), Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/06/2025 obviate said claim rejections – accordingly, the claim rejections under § 112(a),(b) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/06/2025 obviate said claim rejections – accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under §§ 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/06/2025 have been fully 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.
SPECIFICATION
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites multiple paragraphs — the abstract should only consist of one paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “checking a trajectory … by a checking apparatus” in claim 1 (with dependent claims 2–7); and “a checking apparatus, configured to carry out a check” in claim 8 (with dependent claims 9–17).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes:
Checking apparatus: controller 220; processor 222 – see at least FIG. 2 and associated discussion.
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 14-17 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel et al. (US20150286219A1; “Reichel”) in view of Takuechi (US20120235853A1; “Takuechi”) and in view of Xia et al. (US20220178718A1; “Xia”).
As to claim 1, Reichel discloses a method to be carried out by an electronic control device of a first vehicle, comprising the steps of:
checking a trajectory of the first vehicle, which trajectory is planned cooperatively with a second vehicle, with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation, by a checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle and/or based on object data from a fusion of sensor information from at least two sensors of the first vehicle (To perform “coordinated driving,” motor vehicles 6, 8 will determine respective trajectories 7 and 9; and, “The trajectories 7, 9 are exchanged by the communication systems of the motor vehicles and a conflict between the trajectories 7, 9 at the conflict point 10 can be detected early.” See at least ¶ 77 and FIGS. 1, 2 and 4. Indeed, “If another vehicle is detected in the environment by one of the sensors, such as the camera 31, or through communication data received by the communication device 29, then the vehicle trajectory can be transmitted to the other vehicle via the communication device 29, if a coordination condition is satisfied.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 8.); and
outputting a signal for initiating a safety measure or executing the planned trajectory depending on a result of the check, the signal being effective to actuate components of the first vehicle to influence driving dynamics of the first vehicle (“When the conflict is identified in a timely fashion, the trajectory of the vehicle 6 can be adjusted so that the speed is only slightly reduced, which, however, still allows the motor vehicle 8 to pass the intersection before the motor vehicle 6 enters the intersection.” See at least ¶ 77. See also ¶ 68 and FIG. 2 which set forth that “if no conflict exists” then no safety measures are initiated, which necessarily entails that the planned trajectories are executed.).
Reichel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time.
Nevertheless, Takuechi teaches: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time (“In step S4, the collision determination ECU 20 determines whether or not …, a first to a third conditions described below are all satisfied. When all of the first to the third conditions are satisfied, a risk that the own vehicle 100 and the movable object collide with each other … is determined to be high.” ¶ 50. “The third condition is that a predicted travelling direction distance H2 indicates a value that is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value THh2 …. The predicted travelling direction distance H2 represents a predicted value of the own vehicle travelling direction distance H to be obtained when the collision time TTC becomes zero …. A technique used by the collision determination ECU 20 for predicting the positional relationship between the own vehicle 100 and the movable object, to be obtained when a predetermined time elapses, is a conventionally known technique.” ¶ 53.).
Reichel discloses a method, including the steps: checking a trajectory of the first vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle; and outputting a signal for initiating a safety measure or executing the planned trajectory depending on a result of the check. Takuechi teaches: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time.
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 Reichel to include the feature of: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time, as taught by Takuechi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for checking whether an own vehicle’s trajectory interferes with the trajectory of a movable object, thereby enhancing checking for safety-critical traffic situations. (See at least Takuechi, ¶ 53.)
E combination of Reichel and Takuechi fails to explicitly disclose: for the checking, usage of selected data for which a time delay exists between capturing and utilizing the selected data is intentionally minimized.
Nevertheless, Xia teaches: for checking, usage of selected data for which a time delay exists between capturing and utilizing the selected data is intentionally minimized (“Timestamps of arriving lidar data and radar data are compared between sensor information arriving from several RSUs. If lidar data and/or radar data in a DDS frame or stream is older than a threshold amount from other received data, the old data is discarded and not processed.” ¶ 83.).
Reichel discloses a method, including the steps: checking a trajectory of the first vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle; and outputting a signal for initiating a safety measure or executing the planned trajectory depending on a result of the check. Takuechi teaches: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time. Xia teaches: minimizing usage of data which contains a time delay between capture and utilization of the data.
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 combination of Reichel and Takuechi to include the feature of: for checking, usage of selected data for which a time delay exists between capturing and utilizing the selected data is intentionally minimized, as taught by Xia, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for improving “the accuracy of the detection and tracking occurring at the local computing device.” (Xia, ¶ 83.)
Independent claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 4 and 14, Reichel discloses: wherein the at least one sensor of the first vehicle, and/or a section of a capture region of the at least one sensor of the first vehicle, which is assessed as relevant for the planned trajectory is selected from a plurality of sensors of the first vehicle to create the object data (“The motor vehicle 30 includes a plurality of sensors …. The vehicle system 28 uses the environmental information obtained from the sensors … to determine a trajectory.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 8.).
As to claims 5 and 15, Reichel discloses: wherein the signal for executing the planned trajectory is output if no potentially safety-critical traffic situation is identified during the checking of the planned trajectory (See at least ¶ 68 and FIG. 2 which set forth that “if no conflict exists” then no safety measures are initiated, which necessarily entails that the planned trajectories are executed.).
As to claims 6 and 16, Reichel discloses: wherein a signal for initiating a safety measure is output if a potentially safety-critical traffic situation is identified during the checking of the planned trajectory (“When the conflict is identified in a timely fashion, the trajectory of the vehicle 6 can be adjusted so that the speed is only slightly reduced, which, however, still allows the motor vehicle 8 to pass the intersection before the motor vehicle 6 enters the intersection.” See at least ¶ 77.).
As to claims 7 and 17, Reichel discloses: wherein replanning of the planned trajectory, an evasive maneuver can be provided as the safety measure (“When the conflict is identified in a timely fashion, the trajectory of the vehicle 6 can be adjusted so that the speed is only slightly reduced, which, however, still allows the motor vehicle 8 to pass the intersection before the motor vehicle 6 enters the intersection.” See at least ¶ 77. Examiner note: The foregoing analogizes to performing an evasive maneuver because such sets forth a maneuver which evades collision.).
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel in view of Takuechi and in view of Xia as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Kong et al. (US20180088576A1; “Kong”).
As to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Reichel, Takeuchi and Xia fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on data for which a delay chain does not comprise any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle or any temporal delays as a result of a fusion of object data from a plurality of sensors of the second vehicle or any maneuver planning by the second vehicle or any vehicle-to-X communication of a result of the maneuver planning or fused object data or any fusion of received fused object data of the second vehicle and of object data created from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle or any maneuver planning by the first vehicle.
Nevertheless, Kong teaches: wherein a planned trajectory is checked by data for which a delay chain does not comprise any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle (“A system delay [i.e., a delay chain] may be determined based on various different delays including … a steering control delay, a speed control delay, a computational delay, and a communication delay within the autonomous vehicle.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 43. NOTE: The foregoing system delay does not comprise at least creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle.).
Reichel discloses a method, including the steps: checking a trajectory of the first vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle; and outputting a signal for initiating a safety measure or executing the planned trajectory depending on a result of the check. Takuechi teaches: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time. Xia teaches: minimizing usage of data which contains a time delay between capture and utilization of the data. Kong teaches: wherein a planned trajectory is checked by data which considers a delay chain which does not comprise at least any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle.
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 combination of Reichel, Takeuchi and Xia to include the feature of: wherein a planned trajectory is checked by data for which a delay chain does not comprise any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle, as taught by Kong, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for taking into account a delay chain into route planning, thereby optimizing vehicle control.
As to claims 3 and 13, the combination of Reichel, Takeuchi and Xia fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the trajectory of the first vehicle is checked based on data for which a delay chain furthermore does not comprise any delay as a result of data processing by a fusion of the object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle by the first vehicle.
Nevertheless, Kong teaches: wherein a planned trajectory is checked by data for which a delay chain does not comprise any delay as a result of data processing by a fusion of the object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle by the first vehicle (“A system delay [i.e., a delay chain] may be determined based on various different delays including … a steering control delay, a speed control delay, a computational delay, and a communication delay within the autonomous vehicle.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 43. NOTE: The foregoing system delay does not comprise at least creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle.).
Reichel discloses a method, including the steps: checking a trajectory of the first vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle; and outputting a signal for initiating a safety measure or executing the planned trajectory depending on a result of the check. Takuechi teaches: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time. Xia teaches: minimizing usage of data which contains a time delay between capture and utilization of the data. Kong teaches: wherein a planned trajectory is checked by data which considers a delay chain which does not comprise at least does not comprise any delay as a result of data processing by a fusion of the object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle by the first vehicle.
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 combination of Reichel, Takuechi and Xia to include the feature of: wherein a planned trajectory is checked by data for which a delay chain does not comprise any delay as a result of data processing by a fusion of the object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle by the first vehicle, as taught by Kong, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for taking into account a delay chain into route planning, thereby optimizing vehicle control.
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668