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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/467,075 filed on 09/14/2023.
• Claims 1-15, 17-19, 21-35, 37-39, 41-42 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 04/23/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2026, 11/21/2025, 09/14/2023, 01/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: road side unit, means for receiving and determining in claims 17, 37, 41.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-15, 17-19, 22, 32-35, 37-39, 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendland (US 2021300402 A1) in view of ROY(US20240020591A1), further in view of Olson (US20230174084A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 21 and 41-42:
Wendland teaches:
A method of wireless communication performed by a vehicle-to-everything (V2X)-capable vehicle, comprising (Wendland, para [12], “The method of this aspect is therefore used to warn a driver of a motor vehicle about an object that for him is hidden… These position data are received by a communication device of the motor vehicle designed for this purpose, specifically for example by means of a vehicle-to-X-communication, car-to-X-communication or, in particular, car-to-car communication.”)
receiving, from a V2X-capable device, one or more V2X messages indicating at least a presence of one or more objects detected by perception sensors of the V2X-capable device, (Wendland, para [12], “The method of this aspect is therefore used to warn a driver of a motor vehicle about an object that for him is hidden… These position data are received by a communication device of the motor vehicle designed for this purpose, specifically for example by means of a vehicle-to-X-communication, car-to-X-communication or, in particular, car-to-car communication… The detection device comprises, for example, vehicle sensors, such as a front camera, side cameras, a rear camera, optical distance meters and speed meters, such as lidar devices (light detection and ranging), radar devices or ultrasound devices. ”)
wherein the one or more objects include one or more non-vehicle objects incapable of V2X communication; (Wendland, para [48], “the detection device 5 in the determined field of view 13 and/or if a second object 4 is detected,… Here, this second object 4 is the trees ”)
and performing a driving maneuver according to the viable driving trajectory. (Wendland, para [36], “As an alternative or in addition to the automatic emergency stop, an autonomous intervention, such as an evasive maneuver, may be carried out in order to prevent a collision with the first object. ”)
Wendland does not explicitly teach, but ROY teaches:
and reallocating nodes from…to (ROY, Abstract, “reallocating … nodes of the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route to a first new route”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from ROY in order to include reallocating nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “optimizing vehicle route” (ROY, Description).
Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Olson teaches:
determining non-viable driving trajectories of a plurality of potential driving trajectories (Olson, para [52], “due to the high cost of collisions, the entire sub-tree below a collision can be effectively pruned away”) Examiner note: Olson uses Monte Carlo Policy Tree Decision Making in autonomous vehicle route planning for an ego vehicle surrounded by other dynamic vehicles. Olson explicitly discloses assigning high costs to collision/unsafe paths which are non-viable driving trajectories and effectively pruning the sub-tree represents high possibility of collision routes.
reallocating nodes from the non-viable driving trajectories to a set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories to refocus a node budget for determining viable driving trajectories; (Olson, para [52], “due to the high cost of collisions, the entire sub-tree below a collision can be effectively pruned away. This is only possible when the collision can be attributed to a specific node.”, para [59], “particle then takes some path through the tree, …particles are intentionally repeated along different paths”, para [60], “the policy tree is recursively evaluated using the Recurse function until the number of trial exceeds a computational limit. Once the computational limit has been exceeded, the policy (or a path in the policy tree) having the best outcome is selected… the policy is elected by identifying a child node of the root node of the policy tree ”, and para [67], “The expected cost rules are also compared by computational budget (number of Monte Carlo trials) ”) Examiner note: Olson teaches using particles (nodes) representing different paths, and effectively pruning the sub-tree representing high possibility of collision routes (non-viable driving trajectories) in order to refocus node (computational) budget for determining viable driving trajectories, and repeatedly evaluated those potential driving trajectories to determine a path in the policy tree having the best outcome until reaching the computational budget limit.
determining a viable driving trajectory for the vehicle from the set of remaining trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (Olson, para [60], “ the policy (or a path in the policy tree) having the best outcome is selected… the policy is elected by identifying a child node of the root node of the policy tree ”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Olson in order to include determine non-viable driving trajectories of a plurality of potential driving trajectories, reallocate nodes from the non-viable driving trajectories to a set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories to refocus a node budget for determining viable driving trajectories; and determining a viable driving trajectory for the vehicle from the set of remaining trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “significantly lower computational time” (Olson, Description).
Regarding Claims 2 and 22:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Olson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: removing the non-viable driving trajectories from the plurality of potential driving trajectories to determine the set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories(Olson, para [52], “due to the high cost of collisions, the entire sub-tree below a collision can be effectively pruned away”, para [60], “ the policy (or a path in the policy tree) having the best outcome is selected… the policy is elected by identifying a child node of the root node of the policy tree ”) Examiner note: Olson uses Monte Carlo Policy Tree Decision Making in autonomous vehicle route planning for an ego vehicle surrounded by other dynamic vehicles. Olson explicitly discloses assigning high costs to collision/unsafe paths which are non-viable driving trajectories and effectively pruning the sub-tree represents high possibility of collision routes.
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Olson in order to include removing the non-viable driving trajectories from the plurality of potential driving trajectories to determine the set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ significantly lower computational time” (Olson, Description).
Regarding Claims 12 and 32:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more objects are blocked from view of perception sensors of the V2X-capable vehicle. (Wendland, para [12], “detects a second object hiding the first object in a field of view between the motor vehicle and the first object”)
Regarding Claims 13 and 33:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Wendland teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the perception sensors of the V2X-capable vehicle comprise: one or more radar sensors, a lidar sensor, one or more cameras, or any combination thereof. (Wendland, para [12], “ The detection device comprises, for example, vehicle sensors, such as a front camera, side cameras, a rear camera, optical distance meters and speed meters, such as lidar devices (light detection and ranging), radar devices or ultrasound devices. ”)
Regarding Claims 14 and 34:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the perception sensors of the V2X-capable device comprise: one or more radar sensors, a lidar sensor, one or more cameras, or any combination thereof. (Wendland, para [12], “ The detection device comprises, for example, vehicle sensors, such as a front camera, side cameras, a rear camera, optical distance meters and speed meters, such as lidar devices (light detection and ranging), radar devices or ultrasound devices. ”)
Regarding Claims 15 and 35:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more non- vehicle objects comprise: one or more hazards on the road, one or more safety areas on the road, or any combination thereof. (Wendland, para [19], “ check a first object in the surroundings of the motor vehicle,… to determine if it represents a potential hazard for the motor vehicle and the occupants of the motor vehicle”)
Regarding Claims 17 and 37:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the V2X-capable device comprises: a second V2X-capable vehicle, or a roadside unit (RSU). (Wendland, para [21], “This object, that is, the other motor vehicle or the traffic light system, itself transmits its own position data to a corresponding communication device of the motor vehicle with the aid of vehicle-to-X communication, car-to-X communication or car-to-car communication.”)
Regarding Claims 19 and 39:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more V2X messages indicating at least the presence of one or more objects detected by perception sensors of the V2X-capable device comprise the one or more V2X messages indicating: positions of the one or more objects on a road on which the V2X-capable vehicle is travelling, speeds of the one or more objects, headings of the one or more objects, types of the one or more objects, or any combination thereof. (Wendland, para [11], “receiving position data of a first object by means of the motor vehicle from a communication device external to the vehicle; …initiating a predetermined warning cascade.”)
Claim(s) 3, 11, 18, 23, 31, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendland (US 2021300402 A1) in view of ROY(US20240020591A1), further in view of Olson (US20230174084A1) and Fuchs (US20210146922A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 23:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Fuchs teaches:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: transmitting the set of remaining driving trajectories to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof. (Fuchs, para [05],” Transmitting a data packet to the fellow vehicle, wherein the data packet contains a trajectory set of the reference trajectory and the associated reference effort value ”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Fuchs in order to include transmitting the set of remaining driving trajectories to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable improved roue planning” (Fuchs, Description).
Regarding Claims 11 and 31:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Fuchs teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting at least the viable driving trajectory to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof; (Fuchs, para [05],” Transmitting a data packet to the fellow vehicle, wherein the data packet contains a trajectory set of the reference trajectory and the associated reference effort value ”)
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. (Fuchs, para [05],”At least one other fellow data packet may be received from another fellow vehicle”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Fuchs in order to include transmitting at least 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable improved roue planning” (Fuchs, Description).
Regarding Claims 18 and 38:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Fuchs teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more V2X messages are one or more collective perception messages (CPMs). (Fuchs, para [75],” the information is already included in the CAM (Cooperative Awareness Message).” Examiner note: Fuches that the CAM (Cooperative Awareness Message) is equivalent to the collective perception message (CPM).
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Fuchs in order to include wherein the one or more V2X messages are one or more collective perception messages (CPMs). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable improved roue planning” (Fuchs, Description).
Claim(s) 4-7, 9-10, 24-27, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendland (US 2021300402 A1) in view of ROY(US20240020591A1), further in view of Olson (US20230174084A1) and Thibaux (US20230094975A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 24:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Thibaux teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein each node represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through a macro action of one or more macro actions, and each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the V2X- capable vehicle is travelling. (Thibaux, para [76], “FIG. 2 is a diagram of a topological representation of a region of space…. In this example, the topological positions of obstructions 290 a-290 d create branches for a path to proceed from entry to exit. Examples of paths include {201,202} connecting nodes {210,220,230}, {201, 203} connecting nodes {210, 220, 240} and {204,205} connecting nodes {210, 250, 260}.”, and para [44],” A link between nodes on edges represents one or more drivable lanes”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Thibaux in order to include 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the efficiency of the lane graph topology search” (Thibaux, Description).
Regarding Claims 5 and 25:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Thibaux teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: building a search tree of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein each of the plurality of potential driving trajectories corresponds to a subtree of the search tree. (Thibaux, para [84], “A search tree is a collection of all complete or incomplete lane graph topologies reachable by adding links…The search tree contains all possible lane graph topologies for a given drivable region.”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Thibaux in order to include wherein determining the viable driving trajectory comprises: building a search tree of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein each of the plurality of potential driving trajectories corresponds to a subtree of the search tree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the efficiency of the lane graph topology search” (Thibaux, Description).
Regarding Claims 6 and 26:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson and Thibaux, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Thibaux teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein: each subtree of the search tree comprises one or more macro actions, each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the V2X-capable vehicle is travelling and is associated with one or more nodes, 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. (Thibaux, Fig.2 and para [84], “The search tree contains all possible lane graph topologies for a given drivable region.”, and para [84], “The children of a search node A correspond to all lane graph topologies that can be obtained by adding a single link ”)
PNG
media_image1.png
651
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Thibaux in order to include each subtree of the search tree comprises one or more macro actions, each macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the V2X-capable vehicle is travelling and is associated with one or more nodes, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the efficiency of the lane graph topology search” (Thibaux, Description).
Regarding Claims 7 and 27:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson and Thibaux, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Thibaux teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein determining the non-viable driving trajectories 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 presence of the one or more objects detected by the perception sensors of the V2X-capable device; (Thibaux, para [57], “determine, from a set of lane graph topologies, … containing obstacles.”)
and removing the subtrees of the search tree corresponding to the non-viable driving trajectories from the plurality of potential driving trajectories to determine a set of subtrees of the search tree corresponding to the set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein the viable driving trajectory for the V2X-capable vehicle corresponds to a remaining subtree of the set of subtrees of the search tree. (Thibaux, para [112], “The lane graph topology rule application engine can remove lane graph topologies that fail at least one lane graph topology rule”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Thibaux in order to include 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 presence of the one or more objects detected by the perception sensors of the V2X-capable device; and removing the subtrees of the search tree corresponding to the non-viable driving trajectories from the plurality of potential driving trajectories to determine a set of subtrees of the search tree corresponding to a set of remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein the viable driving trajectory for the V2X-capable vehicle corresponds to a remaining subtree of the set of subtrees of the search tree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the efficiency of the lane graph topology search” (Thibaux, Description).
Regarding Claims 9 and 29:
Wendland in view of Fuchs, ROY and Olson and Thibaux, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Olson teaches:
reallocating nodes from the subtrees of the search tree corresponding to the non-viable driving trajectories to remaining subtrees of the search tree, (Olson, para [52], “due to the high cost of collisions, the entire sub-tree below a collision can be effectively pruned away. This is only possible when the collision can be attributed to a specific node.”, para [59], “particle then takes some path through the tree, …particles are intentionally repeated along different paths”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Olson in order to include reallocating nodes from the subtrees of the search tree corresponding to the non-viable driving trajectories to remaining subtrees of the search tree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ significantly lower computational time” (Olson, Description).
Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Thibaux teaches:
The method of claim 5, 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 presence of the one or more objects detected by the perception sensors of the V2X-capable device; (Thibaux, Fig.2 and para [84], “The search tree contains all possible lane graph topologies for a given drivable region.”, and para [84], “The children of a search node A correspond to all lane graph topologies that can be obtained by adding a single link ”, and para [57], “determine, from a set of lane graph topologies, … containing obstacles.”)
…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 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 V2X-capable vehicle is travelling. (Thibaux, Fig.2 and para [84], “The search tree contains all possible lane graph topologies for a given drivable region.”, and para [84], “The children of a search node A correspond to all lane graph topologies that can be obtained by adding a single link ”, and para [57], “determine, from a set of lane graph topologies, … containing obstacles.”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Thibaux in order to include 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 presence of the one or more objects detected by the perception sensors of the V2X-capable device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the efficiency of the lane graph topology search” (Thibaux, Description).
Regarding Claims 10 and 30:
Wendland in view of in view of Fuchs, ROY and Olson and Thibaux, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Olson teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the search tree comprises a Monte Carlo Tree Search. (Olson, Abstract, “Multi-policy Decision Making (MPDM) and Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) are combined and a policy tree search performed with marginal action cost estimation and repeated belief particles.”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Olson in order to include wherein the search tree comprises a Monte Carlo Tree Search. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ significantly lower computational time” (Olson, Description).
Claim(s) 8, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendland (US 2021300402 A1) in view of ROY(US20240020591A1), further in view of Olson (US20230174084A1), Thibaux (US20230094975A1) and Fuchs (US20210146922A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 28:
Wendland in view of ROY and Olson and Thibaux, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Fuchs teaches:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: transmitting …to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof. (Fuchs, para [05],” Transmitting a data packet to the fellow vehicle, wherein the data packet contains a trajectory set of the reference trajectory and the associated reference effort value ”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Fuchs in order to include transmitting data s to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable improved roue planning” (Fuchs, Description).
Wendland does not explicitly teach, but Thibaux teaches:
…the set of subtrees of the search tree(Thibaux, Fig.2 and para [84], “The search tree contains all possible lane graph topologies for a given drivable region.”, and para [84], “The children of a search node A correspond to all lane graph topologies that can be obtained by adding a single link ”)
Therefore, 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 method and control device for warning a driver of a motor vehicle from Wendland to include these above teachings from Thibaux in order to include the set of subtrees of the search tree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the efficiency of the lane graph topology search” (Thibaux, Description).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
102 rejections. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12-14, 17, 19, 21, 32-34, 37, and 39-42 (See applicant’s response, page 14, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
103 rejections. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2, 3, 11, 18, 22, 23, 31, 38 and 4-10 and 24-30 (See applicant’s response, page 15, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights