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 (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-40 of US application 18/467,339 filed 9/14/23 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 7/2/25.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 9/30/25. Claims 1, 4, 7, 18, 20, 23, 26, 37, and 39-40 were amended. Claims 17 and 36 were cancelled. claims 1-16, 18-35, and 37-40 were examined. Examiner filed a final rejection on 11/5/25.
Applicant filed an RCE on 2/5/26. Claims 1, 20, and 39-40 were amended. Claims 10 and 29 were cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-28, 30-35, and 37-40 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are moot because they refer to the amended portions of the claim language. The previously given 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Yu et al. (WO 2021217632 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yu.
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.
Claims 1-3, 14, 18-19, 20-22, 33, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190077402 A1) in view of Yu et al. (WO2021217632A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim and Yu, respectively. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped and rejected together, with the reference being mapped to the narrowest of the claims in the group.
Regarding claims 1, 20, and 39-40, Kim discloses A first vehicle-to-everything (V2X)-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 9 in Kim: Kim discloses that Through the communication apparatus 400, the processor 850 may receive V2V data transmitted by one or more other vehicles in S200 [See at least Kim, 0314]), comprising:
one or more memories (See at least Fig. 8 in Kim: Kim discloses a memory 820 [See at least Kim, 0263]);
one or more transceivers (See at least Fig. 8 in Kim: Kim discloses a communication apparatus 400 [See at least Kim, 0263]); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (See at least Fig. 8 in Kim: Kim discloses a processor 850 [See at least Kim, 0263]), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to (See at least Fig. 8 in Kim: Kim discloses that the processor 850 may control various types of devices provided in the vehicle 100 [See at least Kim, 0273]):
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from a V2X-capable device, one or more V2X messages (See at least Fig. 9 in Kim: Kim discloses that Through the communication apparatus 400, the processor 850 may receive V2V data transmitted by one or more other vehicles in S200 [See at least Kim, 0314]) indicating an intended driving path of a second V2X-capable vehicle (Kim discloses that the V2V data may include the V2V data may include GPS location information of a vehicle which has transmitted the V2V data, speed information, information about a set path, information about an error state, information about a control state, and information about a driving mode [See at least Kim, 0319]. It will be appreciated that the “set path” alone is enough to read on the limitation, but the other parts of [Kim, 0319] are also indicative of an intended path of the sending vehicle); and
determine a viable driving trajectory for the first V2X-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 9 in Kim: Kim discloses that The processor 850 may set a recommended path for the vehicle 100 based on the data of interest in S400 [See at least Kim, 0331]) from a plurality of potential driving trajectories of the first V2X-capable vehicle (Kim discloses that the processor 850 may set a recommended path, based on the determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100 and a recommended speed or risk level for each lane of the multilane road [See at least Kim, 0372]. Kim further discloses that For example, when the driving mode of the vehicle 100 is determined to be the safe mode based on vehicle driving information, the processor 850 may set a path, which has the lowest risk level among multiple lanes, as a recommended lane, based on respective risk levels for the multiple lanes [See at least Kim, 0375]. Kim further discloses that The processor 850 may display the recommended path on the display unit 251 [See at least Kim, 0376]) based, at least in part, on the intended driving path of the second V2X-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 10 in Kim: Kim discloses that The processor 850 may select data of interest from one or more V2V data in S300. Kim further discloses that Based on information about a set path and one or more V2V data, the processor 850 may select, from the one or more V2V data, data of interest which is V2V data transmitted by a vehicle of interest which is a other vehicle located on the set path [See at least Kim, 0323]. Kim further discloses that The processor 850 may set a recommended path for the vehicle 100 based on the data of interest in S400 [See at least Kim, 0331]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Kim: Kim further discloses that Based on a determined lane-level location determined for a vehicle of interest, a determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100, data of interest, and vehicle state information, the processor 850 may determine a recommended speed or risk level for a lane in which the vehicle of interest is located (hereinafter, referred to as a “lane of interest) in S420 [See at least Kim, 0358]. Kim further discloses that data of interest may include information about a set path of the vehicle of interest [See at least Kim, 0360]. It will therefore be appreciated that the lane selection of at least [Kim, 0375] is at least partially based on the path of the other vehicle as discussed in at least [Kim, 0358]),
wherein one or more other V2X-capable vehicles include the second V2X-capable vehicle (It will be appreciated from the prior discussion of at least [Kim, 0323 and 0360] that there are other V2X capable vehicles which transmit route info to the ego vehicle); and
perform a driving maneuver according to the viable driving trajectory (Kim further discloses that When the vehicle 100 is in the autonomous mode, the processor 850 may control the vehicle 100 to travel along the recommended path [See at least Kim, 0475 and 0480s]. Kim further discloses that The processor 850 may perform a control action such that the vehicle 100 accelerates up to 100 km/h and then makes a lane change in front of the second vehicle 102 [See at least Kim, 0475]. Kim further discloses that The processor 850 may control the vehicle 100 to make a lane change after the second vehicle 102 passes [See at least Kim, 0480]).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the vehicle being further configured to transmit, via the one or more transceivers, at least the viable driving trajectory to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof.
However, Yu does teach a vehicle being further configured to transmit, via the one or more transceivers, at least the viable driving trajectory to one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, roadside infrastructure (See at least Fig. 2B in Yu: Yu teaches that Communication links 142, 144, 146, and 148 can be based on the V2X standard [See at least Yu, 0023]. Yu further teaches that RSU 210 can receive information of the intended trajectories of these vehicles via the communication links and control the individual maneuver of each vehicle based on the intended trajectories, to avoid collision and to speed up the movement of the vehicles through traffic intersection 100 [See at least Yu, 0023]), or any combination thereof. Both Yu and Kim teach methods for wherein a V2X-capable vehicle determines an intended trajectory for itself in an environment where other V2X vehicles are present. However, only Yu explicitly teaches where the V2X-capable vehicle sends that intended trajectory to a roadside unit (RSU).
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the V2X method of Kim so that the vehicle also sends its intended trajectory to a RSU via V2X communication, as in Yu. Doing so improves safety by allowing the RSU to help the vehicle safely navigate the environment based on the received intended trajectory.
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 20, wherein the one or more processors configured to determine the viable driving trajectory comprises the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
determine non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (Kim discloses that When the road corresponding to the set path is a multilane road, the processor 850 may set a recommended path, based on the determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100 and a recommended speed or risk level for each lane of the multilane road [See at least Kim, 0372]. Kim discloses that For example, when the driving mode of the vehicle 100 is determined to be the safe mode based on vehicle driving information, the processor 850 may set a path, which has the lowest risk level among multiple lanes, as a recommended lane, based on respective risk levels for the multiple lanes [See at least Kim, 0375]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Kim: Kim discloses that a set path with road-level precision, and a recommended path with lane-level precision [See at least Kim, 0303]. This figure illustrates the idea well: the general route SP of the ego vehicle does not change, but there are multiple possible lane-specific routes that the vehicle can take and RP is the recommended path that it finally picks. But it will be appreciated that other lanes evaluated in at least [Kim, 0372] are indicative of other trajectories that follow the overall route SP. But since none of these other lanes are selected, the potential trajectories corresponding to them may be regarded as non-viable) based, at least in part, on the intended driving path of the second V2X-capable vehicle (Kim discloses that the processor 850 may set a recommended path, based on the determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100 and a recommended speed or risk level for each lane of the multilane road [See at least Kim, 0372]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Kim: Kim further discloses that Based on a determined lane-level location determined for a vehicle of interest, a determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100, data of interest, and vehicle state information, the processor 850 may determine a recommended speed or risk level for a lane in which the vehicle of interest is located (hereinafter, referred to as a “lane of interest) in S420 [See at least Kim, 0358]. Kim further discloses that data of interest may include information about a set path of the vehicle of interest [See at least Kim, 0360]. It will therefore be appreciated that the lane selection of at least [Kim, 0375] is at least partially based on the path of the other vehicle as discussed in at least [Kim, 0358]); and
remove 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, wherein the viable driving trajectory for the first V2X-capable vehicle is a remaining driving trajectory of the set of remaining driving trajectories (Kim discloses that When the road corresponding to the set path is a multilane road, the processor 850 may set a recommended path, based on the determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100 and a recommended speed or risk level for each lane of the multilane road [See at least Kim, 0372]. Kim discloses that For example, when the driving mode of the vehicle 100 is determined to be the safe mode based on vehicle driving information, the processor 850 may set a path, which has the lowest risk level among multiple lanes, as a recommended lane, based on respective risk levels for the multiple lanes [See at least Kim, 0375]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Kim: Kim discloses that a set path with road-level precision, and a recommended path with lane-level precision [See at least Kim, 0303]. This figure illustrates the idea well: the general route SP of the ego vehicle does not change, but there are multiple possible lane-specific routes that the vehicle can take and RP is the recommended path that it finally picks. But it will be appreciated that other lanes evaluated in at least [Kim, 0372] are indicative of other trajectories that follow the overall route SP. But since none of these other lanes are selected, the potential trajectories corresponding to them may be regarded as non-viable and discarded or “removed”, leaving only the single viable trajectory RP. Since a set broadly needs to have only 1 item, this single viable trajectory RP may be regarded as comprising a set of remaining viable trajectories of size 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 22, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, the set of remaining driving trajectories (Note that in the rejection of claims 2 and 21 above, this was established to be a set of size 1) to the one or more other V2X-capable vehicles, the roadside infrastructure (See at least Fig. 2B in Yu: Yu teaches that Communication links 142, 144, 146, and 148 can be based on the V2X standard [See at least Yu, 0023]. Yu further teaches that RSU 210 can receive information of the intended trajectories of these vehicles via the communication links and control the individual maneuver of each vehicle based on the intended trajectories, to avoid collision and to speed up the movement of the vehicles through traffic intersection 100 [See at least Yu, 0023]), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claims 14 and 33, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 20, wherein the one or more V2X messages comprise:
one or more basic safety messages (BSMs), one or more collective perception messages (CPMs), one or more maneuver sharing and coordination messages (MSCM) (Kim discloses that the V2V data may include the V2V data may include GPS location information of a vehicle which has transmitted the V2V data, speed information, information about a set path, information about an error state, information about a control state, and information about a driving mode [See at least Kim, 0319]), one or more decentralized environmental notification messages (DENMs), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claims 15 and 34, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 20, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
receive, via the one or more transceivers (See at least Fig. 9 in Kim: Kim discloses that Through the communication apparatus 400, the processor 850 may receive V2V data transmitted by one or more other vehicles in S200 [See at least Kim, 0314]), one or more driving trajectories (Kim discloses that the V2V data may include the V2V data may include GPS location information of a vehicle which has transmitted the V2V data, speed information, information about a set path, information about an error state, information about a control state, and information about a driving mode [See at least Kim, 0319]. It will be appreciated that the “set path” alone is enough to read on the alone limitation, but the other parts of [Kim, 0319] are also indicative of an intended path of the sending vehicle) from the one or more other V2X-capable vehicles (See at least Fig. 9 in Kim: Kim discloses that Through the communication apparatus 400, the processor 850 may receive V2V data transmitted by one or more other vehicles in S200 [See at least Kim, 0314]), the roadside infrastructure, or any combination thereof, wherein the viable driving trajectory is determined (See at least Fig. 9 in Kim: Kim discloses that The processor 850 may set a recommended path for the vehicle 100 based on the data of interest in S400 [See at least Kim, 0331]) further based on the one or more driving trajectories (See at least Fig. 10 in Kim: Kim discloses that The processor 850 may select data of interest from one or more V2V data in S300. Kim further discloses that Based on information about a set path and one or more V2V data, the processor 850 may select, from the one or more V2V data, data of interest which is V2V data transmitted by a vehicle of interest which is a other vehicle located on the set path [See at least Kim, 0323]. Kim further discloses that The processor 850 may set a recommended path for the vehicle 100 based on the data of interest in S400 [See at least Kim, 0331]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Kim: Kim further discloses that Based on a determined lane-level location determined for a vehicle of interest, a determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100, data of interest, and vehicle state information, the processor 850 may determine a recommended speed or risk level for a lane in which the vehicle of interest is located (hereinafter, referred to as a “lane of interest) in S420 [See at least Kim, 0358]. Kim further discloses that data of interest may include information about a set path of the vehicle of interest [See at least Kim, 0360]. It will therefore be appreciated that the lane selection of at least [Kim, 0375] is at least partially based on the path of the other vehicle as discussed in at least [Kim, 0358]).
Regarding claims 18 and 37, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 20, wherein the driving maneuver comprises:
a lane change (See at least Figs. 16A-16C in Kim: Kim teaches that When the vehicle 100 is in the autonomous mode, the processor 850 may control the vehicle 100 to travel along the recommended path [See at least Kim, 0475]. Kim further teaches that The processor 850 may perform a control action such that the vehicle 100 accelerates up to 100 km/h and then makes a lane change in front of the second vehicle 102 [See at least Kim, 0475]),
a merge onto a road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle, the second V2X-capable vehicle, or both are driving,
a hard braking event,
a turn onto another road than the road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle, the second V2X-capable vehicle, or both are driving, or
a turn off of the road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle, the second V2X-capable vehicle, or both are driving.
Regarding claims 19 and 38, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 20, wherein the V2X-capable device is:
the second V2X-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 9 in Kim: Kim discloses that Through the communication apparatus 400, the processor 850 may receive V2V data transmitted by one or more other vehicles in S200 [See at least Kim, 0314]),
a third V2X-capable vehicle, or
roadside infrastructure.
Claims 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190077402 A1) in view of Yu et al. (WO2021217632A1) further in view of Choi et al. (US 20240383496 A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped and rejected together, with the reference being mapped to the narrowest of the claims in the group.
Regarding claims 4 and 23, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 20, wherein the one or more processors configured to determine the viable driving trajectory comprises the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
determine non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (Kim discloses that When the road corresponding to the set path is a multilane road, the processor 850 may set a recommended path, based on the determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100 and a recommended speed or risk level for each lane of the multilane road [See at least Kim, 0372]. Kim discloses that For example, when the driving mode of the vehicle 100 is determined to be the safe mode based on vehicle driving information, the processor 850 may set a path, which has the lowest risk level among multiple lanes, as a recommended lane, based on respective risk levels for the multiple lanes [See at least Kim, 0375]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Kim: Kim discloses that a set path with road-level precision, and a recommended path with lane-level precision [See at least Kim, 0303]. This figure illustrates the idea well: the general route SP of the ego vehicle does not change, but there are multiple possible lane-specific routes that the vehicle can take and RP is the recommended path that it finally picks. But it will be appreciated that other lanes evaluated in at least [Kim, 0372] are indicative of other trajectories that follow the overall route SP. But since none of these other lanes are selected, the potential trajectories corresponding to them may be regarded as non-viable) based, at least in part, on the intended driving path of the second V2X-capable vehicle (Kim discloses that the processor 850 may set a recommended path, based on the determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100 and a recommended speed or risk level for each lane of the multilane road [See at least Kim, 0372]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Kim: Kim further discloses that Based on a determined lane-level location determined for a vehicle of interest, a determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100, data of interest, and vehicle state information, the processor 850 may determine a recommended speed or risk level for a lane in which the vehicle of interest is located (hereinafter, referred to as a “lane of interest) in S420 [See at least Kim, 0358]. Kim further discloses that data of interest may include information about a set path of the vehicle of interest [See at least Kim, 0360]. It will therefore be appreciated that the lane selection of at least [Kim, 0375] is at least partially based on the path of the other vehicle as discussed in at least [Kim, 0358]),
wherein the viable driving trajectory for the first V2X-capable vehicle is a remaining driving trajectory of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (Kim discloses that When the road corresponding to the set path is a multilane road, the processor 850 may set a recommended path, based on the determined lane-level location of the vehicle 100 and a recommended speed or risk level for each lane of the multilane road [See at least Kim, 0372]. Kim discloses that For example, when the driving mode of the vehicle 100 is determined to be the safe mode based on vehicle driving information, the processor 850 may set a path, which has the lowest risk level among multiple lanes, as a recommended lane, based on respective risk levels for the multiple lanes [See at least Kim, 0375]. Also see at least Fig. 10 in Kim: Kim discloses that a set path with road-level precision, and a recommended path with lane-level precision [See at least Kim, 0303]. This figure illustrates the idea well: the general route SP of the ego vehicle does not change, but there are multiple possible lane-specific routes that the vehicle can take and RP is the recommended path that it finally picks. But it will be appreciated that other lanes evaluated in at least [Kim, 0372] are indicative of other trajectories that follow the overall route SP. But since none of these other lanes are selected, the potential trajectories corresponding to them may be regarded as non-viable and discarded or removed, leaving only the single viable trajectory RP as a “remaining” trajectory).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach where the vehicle is further configured to reallocate nodes from the non-viable driving trajectories to remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories,
wherein each of the nodes represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through a macro action of one or more macro actions, and
wherein each of the one or more macro actions represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle is travelling.
However, Choi does teach a vehicle which is further configured to reallocate nodes from the non-viable driving trajectories to remaining driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (See at least Fig. 3 in Choi: Choi teaches that the processor 120 may create a changed driving link by connecting the driving lane link with a new lane link at the maximum change point Ps [See at least Choi, 0084]. The original trajectory LK1 may be regarded as applicant’s “non-viable” path and the changed driving route formed may be regarded as a remaining path. It will be appreciated that “reallocation” occurs because future nodes after Ps, including endpoint EP, are moved from LK1 to the changed route, while all the points before PS are “reallocated” from LK1 to the changed route),
wherein each of the nodes represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through a macro action of one or more macro actions (See at least Fig. 3 in Choi: Choi teaches that the processor 120 may create a changed driving link by connecting the driving lane link with a new lane link at the maximum change point Ps [See at least Choi, 0084]. Choi further teaches a start point SP of the curved section [See at least Choi, 0063]. Choi further teaches an end point EP of the curved section [See at least Choi, 0063]. All of these are positions on potential driving trajectories that describe macro actions, i.e., stages of the turn and lane change), and
wherein each of the one or more macro actions represents a portion of a lane of a road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle is travelling (See at least Fig. 3 in Choi: Choi teaches that the processor 120 may create a changed driving link by connecting the driving lane link with a new lane link at the maximum change point Ps [See at least Choi, 0084]. Choi further teaches a start point SP of the curved section [See at least Choi, 0063]. Choi further teaches an end point EP of the curved section [See at least Choi, 0063]. All of these are positions on potential driving trajectories that describe macro actions, i.e., stages of the turn and lane change, and that describe positions of lanes of roads on which the vehicle is travelling or will be a travelling). Both Choi and Kim teach methods for considering multiple trajectories to change the lane in which a vehicle is present. However, only Kim explicitly teaches breaking up the trajectory of the vehicle into nodes and reallocating some of those nodes from one trajectory to another in order to change a lane in which the vehicle is present.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lane change method of Kim to also break up the trajectory of the vehicle into nodes and reallocate some of those nodes from one trajectory to another in order to change a lane in which the vehicle is present, as in Choi. Doing so improves the ability of the vehicle to reach one desired trajectory as opposed to a less desired trajectory.
Claims 5-7, 16, 24-26, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190077402 A1) in view of Yu et al. (WO2021217632A1) in further view of Andersen et al. (US 20240125608 A1), hereinafter referred to as Andersen. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped and rejected together, with the reference being mapped to the narrowest of the claims in the group.
Regarding claims 5 and 24, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 20.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose the vehicle wherein the one or more processors configured to determine the viable driving trajectory comprises the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
build a first search tree of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein each of the plurality of potential driving trajectories corresponds to a subtree of the first search tree.
However, Andersen does teach a V2X-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that all of the vehicles are V2X-capable [See at least Andersen, 0029]) wherein the one or more processors configured to determine the viable driving trajectory comprises the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to (See at least Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that a flowchart of a process 1100 for graph exploration forward search [See at least Andersen, 0101]. Andersen further teaches that one or more of the steps described with respect to process 1100 are performed (e.g., completely, partially, and/or the like) by forward search system 550 [See at least Andersen, 0101]. Also see at least Fig. 4 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that forward search system 550 is included in autonomous vehicle compute 400 [See at least Andersen, 0069]. Also see at least Fig. 2 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that autonomous vehicle compute 202f is the same as or similar to autonomous vehicle compute 400 [See at least Andersen, 0043]):
build a first search tree of the plurality of potential driving trajectories, wherein each of the plurality of potential driving trajectories corresponds to a subtree of the first search tree (See at least Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that At 1104, the at least one processor determines a plurality of valid combinations of a plurality of trajectories (e.g., branches 650) to handle the plurality of obstacles [See at least Andersen, 0103]. Also see at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]. There are many subtrees in tree 600, which may be regarded as applicant’s “first search tree”). Both Andersen and Kim teach methods for selecting trajectories for V2X-capable vehicles. However, only Andersen explicitly teaches where the possible trajectories may be formed into a tree, where each trajectory is a subtree of the tree.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trajectory selection method of Kim to also consolidate the possible trajectories into a tree, where each trajectory is a subtree of the tree, as in Andersen. Doing so provides a convenient data structure to analyze the possible trajectories.
Regarding claims 6 and 25, Kim in view of Yu in further view of Andersen teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 24, wherein:
each subtree of the first search tree comprises one or more first macro actions (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]),
each first macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road (Andersen teaches that the actions in the tree are at the lane-level and may involve other surrounding vehicles [See at least Andersen, 0093]) on which the first V2X-capable vehicle, the second V2X-capable vehicle, or both are driving (Andersen teaches that the actions in the tree are at the lane-level and may involve other surrounding vehicles [See at least Andersen, 0093]),
each first macro action is associated with one or more first nodes (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]. Numerous nodes are visible at the ends of branches 650 in the figure), and
each first node represents a position on a potential driving trajectory through the portion of the lane of the road represented by the corresponding first macro action (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that The forward search system 550 determines whether each passing maneuver and/or lateral maneuver is valid based on at least a position of the vehicle 804 relative to a position of the plurality of obstacles 802 (e.g., obstacles 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 622, 624) [See at least Andersen, 0090]. Therefore, each of the nodes 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 622, 624 may be regarded as indicative not only of the position of an obstacle, but also the position of the ego vehicle relative to the obstacle on the ego vehicle’s trajectory, especially given that branches 650 connecting these obstacle nodes are understood to indicate trajectories relative to these obstacles [See at least Andersen, 0087]).
Regarding claims 7 and 26, Kim in view of Yu in further view of Andersen teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 25, wherein:
the intended driving path is represented as a subtree of a second search tree of the second V2X-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that environment 100 includes vehicles 102a-102n, objects 104a-104n, routes 106a-106n, area 108, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) device 110 [See at least Andersen, 0024]. Also see at least Fig. 2 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that vehicles 102 are the same as, or similar to, vehicles 200 [See at least Andersen, 0025]. Also see at least Fig. 4 in Anderson: Andersen further teaches that autonomous vehicle compute 202f is the same as or similar to autonomous vehicle compute 400 [See at least Andersen, 0043]. Andersen further teaches that forward search system 550 is included in autonomous vehicle compute 400 [See at least Andersen, 0069]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen further teaches that one or more of the steps described with respect to process 1100 are performed (e.g., completely, partially, and/or the like) by forward search system 550 [See at least Andersen, 0101]. It will therefore be appreciated that all of vehicles 102a-102n in Fig. 1 carry out the search tree calculations of Fig. 11. Returning to Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen further teaches that At 1104, the at least one processor determines a plurality of valid combinations of a plurality of trajectories (e.g., branches 650) to handle the plurality of obstacles [See at least Andersen, 0103]. Also see at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]. In the context of a second vehicle of vehicles 102a-102n, this tree may be regarded as a “second tree”),
the subtree of the second search tree comprises one or more second macro actions (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]),
each second macro action represents a portion of a lane of a road (Andersen teaches that the actions in the tree are at the lane-level and may involve other surrounding vehicles [See at least Andersen, 0093]) on which the first V2X-capable vehicle, the second V2X-capable vehicle, or both are driving (Andersen teaches that the actions in the tree are at the lane-level and may involve other surrounding vehicles [See at least Andersen, 0093]),
each second macro action is associated with one or more second nodes (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]. Numerous nodes are visible at the ends of branches 650 in the figure),
each second node represents a position within the portion of the lane of the road represented by the corresponding second macro action (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that The forward search system 550 determines whether each passing maneuver and/or lateral maneuver is valid based on at least a position of the vehicle 804 relative to a position of the plurality of obstacles 802 (e.g., obstacles 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 622, 624) [See at least Andersen, 0090]. Therefore, each of the nodes 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 622, 624 may be regarded as indicative not only of the position of an obstacle, but also the position of the ego vehicle relative to the obstacle on the ego vehicle’s trajectory, especially given that branches 650 connecting these obstacle nodes are understood to indicate trajectories relative to these obstacles [See at least Andersen, 0087]).
Regarding claims 16 and 35, Kim in view of Yu teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 34.
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the vehicle wherein:
the viable driving trajectory is represented as a subtree of a search tree of the first V2X-capable vehicle,
the subtree of the search tree comprises one or more macro actions,
each macro action represents a portion of a lane of the road on which the first V2X-capable vehicle, the second V2X-capable vehicle, or both are driving,
each macro action is associated with one or more nodes,
each node represents a position within the portion of the lane of the road represented by the corresponding macro action.
However, Andersen does teach a V2X-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that all of the vehicles are V2X-capable [See at least Andersen, 0029]) wherein:
the viable driving trajectory is represented as a subtree (See at least Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that At 1106, the at least one processor generates a reduced decision tree (e.g., the reduced decision tree 700) based at least on the plurality of valid combinations by at least excluding a second trajectory of the plurality of trajectories associated with an obstacle of the plurality of obstacles based on a position of the obstacle being outside a corridor defined by a spatial range and/or a temporal range [See at least Andersen, 0106]) of a search tree of the first V2X-capable vehicle (See at least Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that At 1104, the at least one processor determines a plurality of valid combinations of a plurality of trajectories (e.g., branches 650) to handle the plurality of obstacles [See at least Andersen, 0103]. Also see at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]. There are many subtrees in tree 600, which may be regarded as applicant’s “first search tree”),
the subtree of the search tree comprises one or more macro actions (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]),
each macro action represents a portion of a lane of the road (Andersen teaches that the actions in the tree are at the lane-level and may involve other surrounding vehicles [See at least Andersen, 0093]) on which the first V2X-capable vehicle, the second V2X-capable vehicle, or both are driving (Andersen teaches that the actions in the tree are at the lane-level and may involve other surrounding vehicles [See at least Andersen, 0093]),
each macro action is associated with one or more nodes (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that the trajectories are represented as branches 650 of the decision tree 600 [See at least Andersen, 0087]. Numerous nodes are visible at the ends of branches 650 in the figure),
each node represents a position within the portion of the lane of the road represented by the corresponding macro action (See at least Fig. 6 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that The forward search system 550 determines whether each passing maneuver and/or lateral maneuver is valid based on at least a position of the vehicle 804 relative to a position of the plurality of obstacles 802 (e.g., obstacles 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 622, 624) [See at least Andersen, 0090]. Therefore, each of the nodes 602, 604, 606, 608, 610, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 622, 624 may be regarded as indicative not only of the position of an obstacle, but also the position of the ego vehicle relative to the obstacle on the ego vehicle’s trajectory, especially given that branches 650 connecting these obstacle nodes are understood to indicate trajectories relative to these obstacles [See at least Andersen, 0087]).
Claims 13 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190077402 A1) in view of Yu et al. (WO2021217632A1) in further view of Andersen et al. (US 20240125608 A1) in further view of Kobilarov et al. (US 20190101919 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kobilarov. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped and rejected together, with the reference being mapped to the narrowest of the claims in the group.
Regarding claims 13 and 32, Kim in view of Yu in further view of Andersen teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 24.
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the vehicle wherein the first search tree comprises a Monte Carlo Tree Search.
However, Kobilarov does a teach a vehicle wherein the first search tree comprises a Monte Carlo Tree Search (See at least Fig. 7 in Kobilarov: Kobilarov teaches that At operation 714, the operation can include searching through the trajectories using Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) [See at least Kobilarov, 0159]). Both Kobilarov and Kim in view of Andersen teach methods of using search trees to select vehicle trajectories. However, only Kobilarov explicitly teaches where the tree may be traversed using a Monte Carlo Tree Search.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tree search of Kim in view of Uno in further view of Andersen to also use a Monte Carlo Tree Search, as in Kobilarov. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this is a standard and obvious way to conduct a tree search.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11-12, 27-28, and 30-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record is Kim et al. (US 20190077402 A1) in view of Yu et al. (WO2021217632A1) in further view of Andersen et al. (US 20240125608 A1). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8 and 27, Kim in view of Yu in further view of Andersen teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 26, wherein the one or more processors configured to determine the viable driving trajectory comprises the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
determine subtrees of the first search tree corresponding to non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (See at least Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that At 1106, the at least one processor generates a reduced decision tree (e.g., the reduced decision tree 700) based at least on the plurality of valid combinations by at least excluding a second trajectory of the plurality of trajectories associated with an obstacle of the plurality of obstacles based on a position of the obstacle being outside a corridor defined by a spatial range and/or a temporal range [See at least Andersen, 0106]).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the vehicle wherein the subtrees corresponding to non-viable driving trajectories are determined based, at least in part, on the subtree representing the intended driving path of the second V2X-capable vehicle.
While Anderson does teach determining subtrees which are non-viable because they are too far away from the position of the ego vehicle (See at least [Anderson, 0106]), none of the subtrees are determined to be non-viable based on representing the intended path of a different V2X-capable vehicle.
None of the prior art of record comes closer to teaching this limitation.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 8 and 27 contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 9 and 28, these claims also contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence from claims 8 and 27, respectively.
Regarding claims 11 and 30, Kim in view of Yu in further view of Andersen teaches The first V2X-capable vehicle of claim 26, wherein the one or more processors configured to determine the viable driving trajectory comprises the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
determine subtrees of the first search tree corresponding to non-viable driving trajectories of the plurality of potential driving trajectories (See at least Fig. 11 in Andersen: Andersen teaches that At 1106, the at least one processor generates a reduced decision tree (e.g., the reduced decision tree 700) based at least on the plurality of valid combinations by at least excluding a second trajectory of the plurality of trajectories associated with an obstacle of the plurality of obstacles based on a position of the obstacle being outside a corridor defined by a spatial range and/or a temporal range [See at least Andersen, 0106]).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the vehicle wherein the subtrees corresponding to non-viable driving trajectories are determined based, at least in part, on the subtree representing the intended driving path of the second V2X-capable vehicle.
While Anderson does teach determining subtrees which are non-viable because they are too far away from the position of the ego vehicle (See at least [Anderson, 0106]), none of the subtrees are determined to be non-viable based on representing the intended path of a different V2X-capable vehicle.
None of the prior art of record comes closer to teaching this limitation.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 11 and 30 contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 12 and 31, these claims also contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence from claims 11 and 30, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668