DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/2/2023 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-4, and 7-24 are pending.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 5-6 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims.
This FINAL Office action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 10/3/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/3/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 5-6 have been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to Drawing Objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawings Objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims no longer contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4 and 7-22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0126864) in view of Beaurepaire et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0336218).
With respect to Claim 1: While Moustafa discloses “A vehicle system comprising” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0274-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892];
“memory” [Moustafa, ¶ 0170];
“one or more processors configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory to” [Moustafa, ¶ 0170];
“analyze data associated with a driving environment of a vehicle” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0274-0279, 0288, 0472, 0887-0888, and 1892 (to accurately reflect the changing environments that are experienced during use, both in terms of novel events (e.g., a change in a snow storm) and changing patterns (e.g., increases in traffic density)];
“select a mitigative action for the vehicle in response to a traffic disturbance present in the driving environment by generating lane density estimates based on analyzing the data” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0472, and 0887-0888 (to maintain a minimal time gap to the preceding vehicle and obtain traffic flow and fuel efficiency improvements. Other coordinated maneuvers may be supported in some systems, such as lane-changing and merging through a combination of longitudinal and lateral coordination in order to establish secure gaps in vehicle corridors and adjacent lanes)];
“and simulating one or more mitigative actions on the driving environment based on the lane density estimates” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0472, and 0887-0888 (In such instances, a vehicle may first detect the scenario it is planning around (e.g., based on determinations made in the vehicle's own path planning phase) and use the results to identify a specific one of the other vehicle's shared models to identify the behavioral model that best “fits” the present scenario and use this behavioral model) and (to compute individual behavioral models based on probabilistic projections for the surrounding vehicles, but merely check if the projections are credible and modify its behavior accordingly)];
“wherein the data comprises messages communicated by a plurality of communicatively connected vehicles in the vicinity of the driving environment” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0274-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892 (Vehicle-to-vehicle communications (V2V) may be utilized by autonomous vehicles to realize risk-reduction)];
“and execute autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle based on the selected mitigative action” [Moustafa, ¶ 0179, 0238, 0274-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892 (in-vehicle autonomous driving system of a particular vehicle may be configured to perform maneuver coordination in fully automated)];
Moustafa does not specifically state that effects of an estimated maneuver were being considered, rather using models for coordination with best fits and only credible option.
Beaurepaire, which is in the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle control and determine maneuvers to perform teaches “and simulating effects of one or more mitigative actions on the driving environment based on the lane density estimates” [Beaurepaire, ¶ 0022, 0053, 0068, and 0080 (at peak time on a single carriageway (especially in a traffic jam) where such a manoeuvre could potentially induce road rage in other drivers. On the other hand, the impact of the manoeuvre on traffic flow may be reduced if there are multiple inbound 314 and/or outbound 315 lanes)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beaurepaire into the invention of Moustafa to not only include using predicted paths of ego vehicle and other vehicles in lanes of traffic for vehicle coordination and control as Moustafa discloses but to also estimate the effects of performing some vehicle maneuvers to other lanes of vehicles as taught by Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Beaurepaire into Moustafa to create a more robust system that not only control multiple vehicles in traffic situations but also take into account legality, space, other road users convenience and how they might affect them such as road rage [Beaurepaire, ¶ 0013 and 0068]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as autonomous vehicle control in traffic areas and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a wireless communication device connected to the plurality of communicatively connected vehicles” [Moustafa, ¶ 0274-0281].
With respect to Claim 3: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the messages comprise one or more of: basic safety messages, maneuver messages, and sensor messages” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0274-0279, 0288, 0880-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claim 4: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 1, comprising vehicle sensors generating sensor data associated with the driving environment” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0274-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claim 7: While Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause at least one of the one or more processors to simulate one or more mitigative actions by evaluating a cost function associated with the traffic disturbance for the one or more lanes in a road of the driving environment” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0472, 0790, 0887-0888, 967 and 1892 (pull towards the slow lane and reduce cruising speed according to the traffic and the road conditions at the cost of increased travel time)].
Moustafa does not specifically state that effects of an estimated maneuver were being considered, rather using models for coordination with best fits and only credible option and even pulling over in traffic.
Beaurepaire, which is in the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle control and determine maneuvers to perform teaches “to simulate the effects of one or more mitigative actions by evaluating a cost function associated with an attenuation of the traffic disturbance for the one or more lanes in a road of the driving environment” [Beaurepaire, ¶ 0022, 0053, 0068, and 0080 (at peak time on a single carriageway (especially in a traffic jam) where such a manoeuvre could potentially induce road rage in other drivers. On the other hand, the impact of the manoeuvre on traffic flow may be reduced if there are multiple inbound 314 and/or outbound 315 lanes)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beaurepaire into the invention of Moustafa to not only include using predicted paths of ego vehicle and other vehicles in lanes of traffic for vehicle coordination and control as Moustafa discloses but to also estimate the effects of performing some vehicle maneuvers to other lanes of vehicles as taught by Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Beaurepaire into Moustafa to create a more robust system that not only control multiple vehicles in traffic situations but also take into account legality, space, other road users convenience and how they might affect them such as road rage [Beaurepaire, ¶ 0013 and 0068]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as autonomous vehicle control in traffic areas and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 8: While Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions further cause at least one of the one or more processors to select the mitigative action and a corresponding lane for the mitigative action that are associated with a lowest attenuation of the traffic disturbance based on the cost function” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0472, 0790, 0887-0888, 967 and 1892 (pull towards the slow lane and reduce cruising speed according to the traffic and the road conditions at the cost of increased travel time)].
Moustafa does not specifically state that effects of an estimated maneuver were being considered, rather using models for coordination with best fits and only credible option and even pulling over in traffic.
Beaurepaire, which is in the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle control and determine maneuvers to perform teaches “to select the mitigative action and a corresponding lane for the mitigative action that are associated with a lowest attenuation of the traffic disturbance based on the cost function” [Beaurepaire, ¶ 0022, 0053, 0068, and 0080 (at peak time on a single carriageway (especially in a traffic jam) where such a manoeuvre could potentially induce road rage in other drivers. On the other hand, the impact of the manoeuvre on traffic flow may be reduced if there are multiple inbound 314 and/or outbound 315 lanes)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beaurepaire into the invention of Moustafa to not only include using predicted paths of ego vehicle and other vehicles in lanes of traffic for vehicle coordination and control as Moustafa discloses but to also estimate the effects of performing some vehicle maneuvers to other lanes of vehicles as taught by Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Beaurepaire into Moustafa to create a more robust system that not only control multiple vehicles in traffic situations but also take into account legality, space, other road users convenience and how they might affect them such as road rage [Beaurepaire, ¶ 0013 and 0068]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as autonomous vehicle control in traffic areas and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 9: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause at least one of the one or more processors to generate messages for communicating to the plurality of communicatively connected vehicles based on the selected mitigative action, and generates control commands to effectuate the autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle based on the selected mitigative action” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0472, 0887-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claim 10: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 9, wherein instructions further cause at least one of the one or more processors to generate intent messages associated with the selected mitigative action for communicating to the plurality of communicatively connected vehicles” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claim 11: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 10, wherein instructions further cause at least one of the one or more processors to select additional mitigative actions for one or more of the plurality of communicatively connected vehicles to perform a cooperative maneuver that further attenuates the traffic disturbance” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claim 12: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 11, wherein instructions further cause at least one of the one or more processors to generate maneuver request messages for communicating the selected additional mitigative actions of the cooperative maneuver to the one or more of the plurality of communicatively connected vehicles” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claim 13: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 12, wherein the maneuver request messages effectuate autonomous actions to maneuver the one or more of the plurality of communicatively connected vehicles in coordination with the selected mitigative actions to perform the cooperative maneuver” [Moustafa, ¶ 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claim 14: Moustafa discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein instructions further cause at least one of the one or more processors to apply the data associated with a driving environment to an artificial intelligence (Al)/machine learning (ML) agent that is trained to select the mitigative action for the vehicle” [Moustafa, ¶ 0021, 0174, 0211, 0238, 0270-0279, 0288, 0887-0888, and 1892].
With respect to Claims 15-22: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 1-14. The medium taught/disclosed in Claims 15-22 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 1-14. Therefore Claims 15-22 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0126864) in view of Beaurepaire et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0336218) and in further view of Yoshida et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0207997)
With respect to Claim 23: While Moustafa discloses “The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the lane density estimates comprise lane density estimates for a lane of the vehicle” [Moustafa, ¶ 0215, 274, and 0472 (obtain traffic flow)];
Moustafa does not specifically state that what lanes are being considered for traffic jams or traffic flow.
Yoshida, which is in the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle control teaches “wherein the lane density estimates comprise lane density estimates for a lane of the vehicle and one or more adjacent lanes” [Yoshida, ¶ 0004, 0008, and 0149 with Figure 11 (the traffic flow estimation apparatus 1 calculates the speeds of the other vehicles 7 based on the speed of the vehicle 6, the road and lane where the vehicle 6 is traveling, the moving amounts of the other vehicles 7, and the estimated lanes in which the other vehicles 7 are traveling, and thus calculates a traffic flow for each lane)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida into the invention of Moustafa to not only include using traffic flow data as a variable for vehicle control and coordination as Moustafa discloses but to also estimate the traffic flow for each lane as taught by Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Yoshida into Moustafa to create a more robust system that “be possible to grasp road conditions on streets, such as traffic congestion information, in real time, and to take early improvement of traffic conditions and proactive measures” [Yoshida, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as autonomous vehicle control in traffic areas and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 24: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claim 23. The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 24 can clearly perform on the system of Claim 23. Therefore Claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights