zNotice 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 office action is in response to the patent application filed on October 28, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 15-20 are new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. DE102022209276.7, filed on September 7, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on October 28, 2025 have rendered the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of the non-final office action filed July 29, 2025 moot and therefore withdrawn. This also results in the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections being moot and withdrawn.
The amended independent claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for a new matter rejection as shown below.
The amended claims do overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, therefore the 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn pending the applicant overcome the new matter rejections.
The amended claims do not overcome the prior art rejections, therefore the prior art rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Phan does not disclose requiring sending the trajectory information about the second future trajectory only when the deviation is greater than a threshold value. While the examiner agrees that Phan does not disclose this, as-written, the amended claim limitation is written as a use-case and is therefore not required by Phan. Also, as shown below, the amended limitation is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as being new matter. For these reasons, the applicant’s argument is moot and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant also argues that the planner of Phan has no disclosure of being remote. However, this is addressed in the new prior art rejection as shown below.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, & 15, the amended limitation …only when… and …to reduce a bandwidth requirement of the vehicle and the receiver used for sending of the trajectory information about the first future trajectory and/or the trajectory information about the second future trajectory,… are not found to be supported by the original disclosure. While there is mention of keeping bandwidth low, there is not requirement that it only occur when the deviation is greater thana threshold value, nor is there mention of reducing the bandwidth requirements of the vehicle and receiver.
Further, the amended limitation …wherein the receiver is remote from the vehicle, and… is also not supported by the original disclosure. The receiver itself is not shown in the drawings, nor is there mention in the specification that the receiver must be remote from the vehicle.
Finally, the amended limitation …wherein the vehicle is operated to travel according to the second future trajectory. is also not supported by the original disclosure.
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)(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 1-2, 9-11, 12, & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 11644842 B1, to Phan et al., hereafter Phan.
Regarding Claim 1, Phan discloses A method for sending messages from a vehicle to a receiver during travel by the vehicle (Phan Col. 20 Rows 48-57, Examiner Note: Phan discloses transmitting information and data (i.e. messages) from the sensors and vehicle controller to a planner (i.e. receiver) in order to predict a path of travel),
comprising: estimating a first future trajectory of the vehicle (Phan Col. 24 Row 64 – Col. 25 Row 14, Examiner Note: Phan discloses detecting a predicted first trajectory of a vehicle);
sending trajectory information about the first future trajectory to the receiver (Phan Col. 22 Row 63-Col. 23 Row 10 & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Phan discloses a planner (i.e. receiver), 508, predicting a second trajectory based on a first trajectory);
determining a deviation of an actual position of the vehicle from a position predicted by the first future trajectory (Phan Col. 24 Row 64 – Col. 25 Row 14 & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Phan discloses determining a deviation from the first trajectory that satisfies a threshold);
estimating a second future trajectory (Phan Col. 24 Row 64 – Col. 25 Row 14 & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Phan discloses detecting a predicted second trajectory of a vehicle); and
sending trajectory information about the second future trajectory to the receiver only when the deviation is greater than a threshold value to reduce a bandwidth requirement of the vehicle and the receiver used for sending of the trajectory information about the first future trajectory and/or the trajectory information about the second future trajectory (Phan Col. 24 Row 53-61 & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Phan discloses the capability to repeat the process of figure 6. Therefore, if the process were to be repeated, a deviation of the second trajectory, step 604, would be found and sent to the planner which will determine a third trajectory, step 606, and so on. The limitation of reducing the bandwidth is written as a use-case and is therefore not addressed in the art rejection),
wherein the receiver is remote from the vehicle (Phan Col. 13 Row 48- Col. 14 Row 18 & Fig. 4A, Examiner Note: Phan discloses the planning system 404 which is a part of the autonomous computer which can be performed remotely), and
wherein the vehicle is operated to travel according to the second future trajectory (Phan Col. 24 Row 53-61 & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Phan discloses operating the vehicle based on a predicted trajectory).
Regarding Claim 2, Phan discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the trajectory information about the first future trajectory and/or the trajectory information about the second future trajectory comprises information about at least one possible future waypoint at which the vehicle is located at least at one specific future timepoint (Phan Col. 14, Rows 35-57, Examiner Note: Phan discloses determining the trajectory information based on an intended destination (i.e. future waypoint) at a future time).
Regarding Claim 8, Phan discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the trajectory information about the second future trajectory is sent when more than a predefined period of time has elapsed since the trajectory information about the first future trajectory was sent (Phan Col. 22 Row 63-Col. 23 Row 10, Examiner Note: Phan discloses the planner predicting a second trajectory at a second time which occurs after the prediction of the first trajectory).
Regarding Claim 9, Phan discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein trajectory information about the second future trajectory is sent when the second future trajectory deviates from the first future trajectory (Phan Col. 22 Row 63-Col. 23 Row 10, Examiner Note: Phan discloses a planner (i.e. receiver), 508, predicting a second trajectory based on a first trajectory after the first trajectory goes beyond a threshold deviation).
Regarding Claim 10, Phan discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein information is transmitted about future directions, speeds, and/or accelerations of the vehicle to the receiver (Phan Col. 14 Rows 35-57, Examiner Note: Phan discloses the planning system uses information received such as updated position, speed, acceleration, and deceleration, in order to update current trajectories or generate new trajectories).
Regarding Claim 11, Phan discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the first future trajectory and/or the second future trajectory is estimated based on a direction of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, a position of the vehicle, a yaw rate of the vehicle, based on dynamic models of the vehicle based on map information, and/or at least one learning algorithm (Phan Col. 14 Rows 35-57, Examiner Note: Phan discloses the planning system uses information received such as updated position, speed, acceleration, and deceleration, in order to update current trajectories or generate new trajectories).
Regarding Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1; Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Phan discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein trajectory information about the second future trajectory is sent if the second future trajectory deviates from the first future trajectory within a predefined period of time (Phan Col. 22 Row 63-Col. 23 Row 10, Examiner Note: Phan discloses the planner predicting a second trajectory at a second time which occurs after the prediction of the first trajectory. Wherein the second trajectory only occurs if the deviation is beyond a certain threshold).
Regarding Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1; Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2; Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
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 3 & 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11644842 B1, to Phan et al., hereafter Phan. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0072966 A1, to Zhang et al., hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, as shown above, Phan discloses The method according to claim 2,
However, Phan does not specifically disclose wherein the trajectory information about the first future trajectory and/or the trajectory information about the second future trajectory comprises confidence information for at least a portion of the at least one possible future waypoint.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the trajectory information about the first future trajectory and/or the trajectory information about the second future trajectory comprises confidence information for at least a portion of the at least one possible future waypoint (Zhang [0058], Examiner Note: Zhang teaches using confidence intervals with respect to predicted trajectories and desired waypoint or destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle trajectory predictor of Phan with the use of confidence intervals to predict trajectories of Zhang in order to more accurately predict future positions of proximate dynamic vehicles (Zhang [0005]).
Regarding Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3; Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Claims 4-5 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11644842 B1, to Phan et al., hereafter Phan. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0379176 A1, to Ross et al., hereafter Ross.
Regarding Claim 4, as shown above, Phan discloses The method according to claim 2,
However, Phan does not specifically disclose wherein the first future trajectory and/or second trajectory is described using one or multiple polynomials.
Ross, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the first future trajectory and/or second trajectory is described using one or multiple polynomials (Ross [0009], Examiner Note: Ross teaches using polynomials to depict trajectories).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle trajectory predictor of Phan with using polynomials to depict trajectories of Ross in order to allow for more complex trajectory paths.
Regarding Claim 5, Phan in view of Ross teaches The method according to claim 4,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the first future trajectory and/or the second future trajectory comprises a tolerance range described by the one or polynomial or the multiple polynomials.
Ross, teaches wherein the first future trajectory and/or the second future trajectory comprises a tolerance range described by the one or polynomial or the multiple polynomials (Ross [0018], Examiner Note: Ross teaches using a tolerance of trajectory polynomial approximation error).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle trajectory predictor of Phan with using tolerances for trajectories of Ross in order to repeat the trajectory prediction process until an accurate prediction has been done (Ross [0016]).
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 18does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 4; Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 5; Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 6-7, 13, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11644842 B1, to Phan et al., hereafter Phan. In view of US 2014/0379176 A1, to Ross et al., hereafter Ross as applied to claims 4-5 above, and further in view of US 2019/0072966 A1, to Zhang et al., hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 6, as shown above, Phan in view of Ross teaches The method according to claim 5,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the tolerance range is calculated based on a statistical characteristic of the at least one possible future waypoint.
Zhang teaches wherein the tolerance range is calculated based on a statistical characteristic of the at least one possible future waypoint (Zhang [0058], Examiner Note: Zhang teaches using confidence intervals with respect to predicted trajectories and desired waypoint or destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle trajectory predictor of Phan in view of Ross with the use of confidence intervals to predict trajectories of Zhang in order to more accurately predict future positions of proximate dynamic vehicles (Zhang [0005]).
Regarding Claim 7, as shown above, Phan in view of Ross and further in view of Zhang teaches The method according to claim 6, wherein the determination of the deviation is performed based on a comparison of the actual position of the vehicle with waypoints described by the tolerance range (Phan Col. 24 Row 64 – Col. 25 Row 14, Examiner Note: Phan discloses determining a deviation from the first trajectory that satisfies a threshold (i.e. tolerance range)).
Regarding Claim 13, Phan in view of Ross teaches The method according to claim 5,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the tolerance range is calculated based on a standard deviation of the at least one possible future waypoint.
Zhang teaches wherein the tolerance range is calculated based on a standard deviation of the at least one possible future waypoint (Zhang [0058], Examiner Note: Zhang teaches using confidence intervals with respect to predicted trajectories and desired waypoint or destination. Since confidence intervals are a function of standard deviations, the calculation of standard deviations is captured when confidence intervals are considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle trajectory predictor of Phan in view of Ross with the use of confidence intervals to predict trajectories of Zhang in order to more accurately predict future positions of proximate dynamic vehicles (Zhang [0005]).
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6; Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666