DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on April 8, 2026, after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026, has been entered.
Status of the Claims
3. This action is responsive to the following communication: a Request for Continued Examination filed on April 8, 2026 (corresponding to Amended Claims and Remarks filed on March 9, 2026); Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16, 17, 19-29, 31, and 32 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 16, 31, and 32 are independent claims; Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 17, 19, 23, 31, and 32 and amended; Claims 3, 15, 18, and 30 are canceled. This action is made non-final.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection, see Remarks filed on March 9, 2026 (see pg. 11), in view of Claim Amendments filed therewith, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brummer et al. (US 2019/0034059 A1), as further discussed below in § 103 rejection.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections, see Remarks filed on March 9, 2026 (see pgs. 12-13), in view of Claim Amendments filed therewith, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Garrido et al. (DE 102021105052 A1), as further discussed below in the updated § 103 rejections.
Claim Interpretation
6. Claim 31 describes a “means for receiving,” “means for determining a viable driving trajectory,” and “means for transmitting a set of remaining driving trajectories,” which are interpreted as invoking 35 USC § 112(f) (see Final Rejection mailed on January 8, 2026 (pgs. 7-9); see also Remarks filed on March 9, 2026, pg. 11, “§ Claim Interpretation of ‘Means’”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
7. Claims 1, 11, 14, 16, 26, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs et al. (hereinafter Fuchs), US 2021/0146922 A1, published on May 20, 2021 (see IDS field on January 10, 2025).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Fuchs teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a first vehicle-to-everything (V2X)-capable vehicle, comprising:
receiving, from a second V2X-capable vehicle, one or more V2X messages indicating a driving state of the second V2X-capable vehicle, wherein the driving state comprises a location of the second V2X-capable vehicle, a speed of the second V2X-capable vehicle, a heading of the second V2X vehicle, or any combination thereof (see ¶¶ 0047, 0050, showing that a vehicle transmits (via V2V) information about its current and intended driving behavior; see also ¶¶ 0017, 0051, describing “trajectory” as a condition progression over time, including position, orientation, speed, acceleration, etc.).
determining a viable driving trajectory for the first V2X-capable vehicle from a plurality of potential driving trajectories of the first V2X-capable vehicle based, at least in part, on the driving state of the second V2X-capable vehicle (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0051, showing a trajectory set out of currently possible trajectories and further showing that one of such trajectories is selected as a reference trajectory; see also ¶¶ 0055-56, 0064-65, showing that currently possible trajectories are updated for each vehicle based on the communication between the vehicles and corresponding analysis).
…
performing a driving maneuver according to the viable driving trajectory (see ¶ 0071, showing that the reference trajectory is a trajectory that vehicle currently follows and is implemented as a target parameter by the driving controller; see also ¶ 0051).
Fuchs does not appear to explicitly illustrate transmitting a set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof, wherein the viable driving trajectory for the first V2X-capable vehicle is a remaining driving trajectory of the set of remaining driving trajectories, but a skilled artisan would understand that it would have been obvious for vehicle 100 in Fuchs to communicate with another vehicle in the same manner as it is communicating with vehicle 104 (or as vehicle 104 is communicating with vehicle 100) in order to allow a plurality of participating vehicles to coordinate an optimal common maneuver, as changing of one vehicle’s trajectory would likely impact more than one neighboring vehicles, resulting in an improved probability of a mutually profitable cooperation (see ¶ 0067).
With respect to independent Claims 16, 31, and 32, these claims are directed to a vehicle and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively, comprising steps and/or features recited in Claim 1, and are thus rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1, above.
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Fuchs teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests transmitting the viable driving trajectory to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof; receiving one or more driving trajectories from the one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, the roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof, wherein the viable driving trajectory is determined further based on the one or more driving trajectories; or any combination thereof (see discussion of Claim 1,above).
With respect to dependent Claim 14, Fuchs teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and while Fuchs does not appear to explicitly state that wherein the one or more V2X messages are one or more basic safety messages (BSMs), Fuchs clearly suggests that the exchanged V2X messages can be Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAMs) (see ¶¶ 0002, 0075, 0088), and a skilled artisan would understand that BSMs would have the same functionality as CAMs, and that communication using BSMs would be implemented in the same way as using CAMs, dependent on the region where utilized.
With respect to dependent Claims 26 and 29, these claims are directed to the vehicle of claim 16, and comprise steps and/or features recited in Claims 11 and 14, respectively, and are thus rejected under the same rationale as those claims, above.
8. Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Phan et al. (hereinafter Phan), US 2021/0139026 A1, published on May 13, 2021.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Fuchs teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and while Fuchs does not appear to explicitly discuss determining non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories based, at least in part, on the driving state of the second V2X-capable vehicle; and removing the non-viable driving trajectories from the plurality of potential driving trajectories to determine a set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, Fuchs at least suggests that non-viable trajectories are removed (see ¶¶ 0059-60). However, the teachings of Phan can be relied upon for an explicit suggestion of this limitation.
Phan is directed towards trajectory prediction from a precomputed or dynamically generated bank of trajectories (see Phan, ¶ 0002). Phan suggests a prediction system that generates a concatenated set of possible trajectories for an agent (see Phan, ¶ 0144) and describes identifying trajectories that are possible to execute at certain speeds (see Phan, ¶ 0148). Phan further suggests determining predicted trajectories that the agent cannot perform and removing them from the trajectory lattice (see Phan, ¶ 0147). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify Fuchs to incorporate the teachings of Phan to show determining non-viable driving trajectories and removing the non-viable driving trajectories from the set of remaining trajectories. One would have been motivated to do so that non-viable trajectories don’t take computing space and processing power.
With respect to dependent Claim 17, Claim 17 is directed to the vehicle of claim 16, and comprises steps and/or features recited in Claim 2, and is thus rejected under the same rationale as Claim 2, above.
9. Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs, in view of Phan, and further in view of Thibaux et al. (hereinafter Thibaux), US 2023/0094975 A1, published on March 30, 2023.
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Fuchs teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but Fuchs does not appear to explicitly discuss determining non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories based, at least in part, on the driving state of the second V2X-capable vehicle; and reallocating nodes from the non-viable driving trajectories to remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein each node represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through a macro action of one or more macro actions, and wherein each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle is travelling. However, the teachings of Phan and Thibaux can be relied upon for an explicit suggestion of these limitations.
Phan is directed towards trajectory prediction from a precomputed or dynamically generated bank of trajectories (see Phan, ¶ 0002). Phan suggests a prediction system that generates a concatenated set of possible trajectories for an agent (see Phan, ¶ 0144) and describes identifying trajectories that are possible to execute at certain speeds (see Phan, ¶ 0148). Phan further suggests determining predicted trajectories that the agent cannot perform and removing them from the trajectory lattice (see Phan, ¶ 0147). Phan does not appear to disclose reallocating nodes from non-viable trajectories to remaining driving trajectories, each node representing a position on a potential driving trajectory through a macro action and wherein each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which a V2X capable vehicle is traveling, but Thibaux, directed to generating predicted lane paths that represent traffic lanes in a drivable region of space (see Thibaux, ¶ 0001), suggests the reallocating step (see Thibaux, ¶ 0112, describing a lane graph topology rule application engine that can remove lane graph topologies that fail). Thibaux further suggest “wherein each node represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through a macro action of one or more macro actions, and wherein each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle is travelling” (see Thibaux, Fig. 2, ¶ 0076, showing a region that has an entry 210 and five exits where the topological positions of obstructions, 290a – 290d, create branches for a path to proceed from entry to exit; see also ¶ 0043, showing that each node along an edge represents a connection between links, or an initial entry or exit point on an entrance edge).
With respect to dependent Claim 19, Claim 19 is directed to the vehicle of claim 16, and comprises steps and/or features recited in Claim 4, and is thus rejected under the same rationale as Claim 4, above.
10. Claims 5, 10, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs, in view of Dicle et al. (hereinafter Dicle), US 2023/0322266 A1, published on October 12, 2023, and further in view of Gall et al. (hereinafter Gall), US 2024/0051581 A1, published on February 15, 2024 (filed on August 15, 2022).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Fuchs teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but Fuchs does not appear to explicitly discuss a search tree of the potential driving trajectories where each trajectory corresponds to a subtree. However, Dicle suggests wherein determining the viable driving trajectory comprises: building a search tree of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (see Dicle, Figs. 6A-G, ¶ 0101, describing a search tree for a scene evaluation system 504 to generate and score simulated states and trajectories from a scene state). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify Fuchs to incorporate the teachings of Dicle to show a search tree of the potential driving trajectories. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate a creative and fast planning system (see Dicle, ¶ 0021).
Fuchs in view of Dicle does not appear to disclose that each trajectory corresponds to a subtree. However, Gall teaches wherein each of the plurality of potential driving trajectories corresponds to a subtree of the search tree (see Gall, ¶ 0085, describing a tree for possible outcomes for each outcome of the AV and a sub-tree for possible outcomes of other agents). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Fuchs in view of Dicle to incorporate the teachings of Gall to show that each trajectory corresponds to a subtree. One would have been motivated to do so in order to estimate the probability of an outcome (see Gall, ¶ 0085).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Fuchs in view of Dicle and Gall suggests the method of claim 5, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the search tree comprises a Monte Carlo Tree Search (see Dicle, ¶ 0101).
With respect to dependent Claims 20 and 25, these claims are directed to the vehicle of claim 16, and comprise steps and/or features recited in Claims 5 and 10, respectively, and are thus rejected under the same rationale as those claims, above.
11. Claims 6, 9, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs, in view of Dicle and Gall, and further in view of Thibaux.
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Fuchs in view of Dicle and Gall suggests the method of claim 5, as discussed above, but do not appear to disclose a subtree representing one or more macro actions in which each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road in which the first V2X vehicle is travelling and each note represents a potential driving trajectory through the portion of the lane represented by the corresponding macro actions. However, Thibaux suggests wherein: each subtree of the search tree comprises one or more macro actions (see Thibaux, Fig. 2, ¶ 0076, describing a region that has an entry 210 and five exits, where the topological positions of obstructions, 290a – 290d, create branches for a path to proceed from entry to exit); each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle is travelling and is associated with one or more nodes (see Thibaux, Fig. 2, ¶ 0077, describing a lane graph topology); and each node represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through the portion of the lane of the road represented by the corresponding macro action (see Thibaux, ¶ 0043, describing that each node along an edge represents a connection between links, or an initial entry or exit point on an entrance edge). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify Fuchs in view of Dicle and Gall to incorporate the teachings of Thibaux to show a subtree representing one or more macro actions in which each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road in which the first V2X vehicle is travelling and each note represents a potential driving trajectory through the portion of the lane represented by the corresponding macro actions. One would have been motivated to do so in order to generate predicted lane paths that represent traffic lanes in a drivable region of space when encountering areas in roads that have not been mapped (see Thibaux, ¶¶ 0001, 0003).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Fuchs in view of Dicle and Gall suggests the method of claim 5, as discussed above, but do not appear to suggests the combination of limitations as recited in this claim, but similarly to discussion (and rationale) of Claim 6, above, the teachings of Thibaux can be relied upon for a suggestion of these limitations. Therefore, Fuchs in view of Dicle, Gall and Thibaux suggests wherein determining the viable driving trajectory comprises: determining subtrees of the search tree corresponding to non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories based, at least in part, on the driving state of the second V2X-capable vehicle; and reallocating nodes from the subtrees of the search tree corresponding to the non-viable driving trajectories to remaining subtrees of the search tree, wherein the viable driving trajectory for the first V2X-capable vehicle corresponds to a remaining subtree of the search tree, wherein each node represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through a macro action of one or more macro actions, and wherein each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle is travelling (see Thibaux, Figs. 6A-G, ¶ 0101, describing a search tree for a scene evaluation system 504 to generate and score simulated states and trajectories from a scene state; ¶ 0112, describing a lane graph topology rule application engine that can remove lane graph topologies that fail; see also, Fig. 2, ¶ 0077, describing a lane graph topology; ¶ 0043, describing that each node along an edge represents a connection between links, or an initial entry or exit point on an entrance edge).
With respect to dependent Claims 21 and 24, these claims are directed to the vehicle of claim 20, and comprise steps and/or features recited in Claims 6 and 9, respectively, and are thus rejected under the same rationale as those claims, above.
12. Claims 7, 8, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs, in view of Dicle and Gall, and further in view of Phan and Thibaux.
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Fuchs in view of Dicle and Gall suggests the method of claim 5, as discussed above, but do not appear to disclose determining subtrees of the search tree corresponding to non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories based, at least in part, on the driving state of the second V2X-capable vehicle; and removing the subtrees of the search tree corresponding to the non-viable driving trajectories from the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein the viable driving trajectory for the first V2X-capable vehicle corresponds to a remaining subtree of the search tree, but Phan and Thibaux, as discussed in Claims 2 and 6, above, can be relied upon for a suggestion of these limitations (see Phan, ¶ 0144, describing a prediction system that generates a concatenated set of possible trajectories for an agent; ¶ 0148, describing identifying trajectories that are possible to execute at certain speeds; ¶ 0147, describing determining predicted trajectories that the agent cannot perform and is removed from the trajectory lattice; in addition, Thibaux, Fig. 2, ¶ 0077, describes a lane graph topology).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Fuchs in view of Dicle, Gall, Phan, and Thibaux suggests the method of claim 7, as discussed above, and further suggests transmitting remaining subtrees of the search tree to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof (see Gall, ¶ 0085, describing a tree for possible outcomes for each outcome of the AV and a sub-tree for possible outcomes of other agents; see also ¶ 0030, describing a V2X device to communicate with vehicles and other V2I infrastructure).
With respect to dependent Claims 22 and 23, these claims are directed to the vehicle of claim 20, and comprise steps and/or features recited in Claims 7 and 8, respectively, and are thus rejected under the same rationale as those claims, above.
13. Claims 12, 13, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Sharma et al. (hereinafter Sharma), US 2019/0256088 A1, published on August 22, 2019.
With respect to dependent Claim 12, Fuchs teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and while Fuchs does not appear to explicitly discuss a vehicle being blocked from view of perception sensors. However, the teachings of Sharma, directed towards generating and transmitting vehicle warnings, can be relied upon for a suggestions of this limitation. Sharma discloses wherein the second V2X-capable vehicle is blocked from view of perception sensors of the first V2X-capable vehicle (see Sharma, ¶ 0083, describing a vehicle 11a that is unable to detect the obstacle 1101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify Fuchs to incorporate the teachings of Sharma to show a vehicle being blocked from view of perception sensors. One would have been motivated to do so that other vehicles can help a user vehicle detect objects it cannot.
With respect to dependent Claim 13, Fuchs in view of Sharma discloses the method of claim 12, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the perception sensors of the first V2X-capable vehicle comprise: one or more radar sensors, a lidar sensor, one or more cameras, or any combination thereof (see Fuchs, ¶¶ 0028, 0051).
With respect to dependent Claims 27 and 28, these claims are directed to the vehicle of claim 16, and comprise steps and/or features recited in Claims 12 and 13, respectively, and are thus rejected under the same rationale as those claims, above.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights