DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
This office action regarding application number 18/538,074, filed December 13, 2023, is in response to the applicants arguments and amendments filed March 9, 2026. Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicants arguments and amendments to the application have overcome some of the objections and rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final action mailed December 10, 2025. Applicants amendments to claims 1, 5, and 9 have been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous 35 USC 102 rejections through the inclusion of “wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle”, therefore the rejections are withdrawn. However as this changes the scope of the claims new rejections have been made based on the changes in scope. Additionally the applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive for the reasons seen below.
On pages 6-7 the applicant argues “Jha also fails to disclose the amended instruction-path limitations requiring (i) an instruction path indicating a traffic priority for the vehicle that is compulsorily followed and (ii) if a message comprising the instruction path is transmitted, driving of the vehicle is controlled according to the instruction path compulsorily regardless of the planned path of the vehicle. Jha's negotiation procedure is consensus-dependent and expressly contemplates that, if negotiation fails, the leader keeps Plan 0 as the selected maneuver plan, and further discloses starting to act on Plan 0 without waiting for group coordination. These disclosures are inconsistent with a mandatory override regime in which the vehicle is compelled to follow an instruction path regardless of its planned path, and further does not expressly disclose an instruction path indicating a traffic priority for the vehicle, nor controlling driving according to such an instruction path compulsorily regardless of the planned path, as recited. Accordingly, Jha fails to disclose the amended instruction-path limitations recited in claim 1 (and correspondingly in claims 5 and 9).”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2142-2144 discusses the requirements for a case of obviousness using 35 USC 103 and provides examples of such cases. MPEP 2111 discusses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and the interpretation of claims.
As discussed in the updated rejections below Jha teaches a roadside system which coordinates maneuvers between a plurality of vehicles, Jha further teaches that the system sends a negotiation request to the vehicles to participate in the coordination (Paragraph [0121-0123], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max)”) here a vehicle can accept or reject a negotiation request that is associated with a maneuver plan; here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute the selected maneuver plan (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).”) each vehicle is agreeing or rejecting a proposed path via the negotiation request and takes action when the path is agreed upon.
Jha further teaches that if no agreement is reached between vehicles the system will compulsorily follow the instruction path, plan 0 (Paragraph [0122], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max) with impacted ITS-Ss 802 for each requested plan.”) (Paragraph [0130], “If negotiation fails for N-Max-Negotiation Rounds, V-ITS-S 110 keeps Plan 0 and stops any further negotiation. Vehicle V5 sends Negotiation End message with Negotiation Result via a V2X message such as ET-MCM (with a Maneuver Coordination/Negotiation Container),” here the system includes a negotiation plan/agreed path and an default plan/instruction path, if negotiation fails the driving of the vehicle is controlled according to the default/instruction path).
Jha additionally teaches the determination of a traffic priority during the negotiation between vehicles (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).” here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute/compulsorily follow the selected maneuver plan) (Paragraph [0167-0168] “Referring to FIG. 14a, the station ordering portion of process 1400 includes operations 1405, 1410, and 1415. At operation 1405, the ego ITS-S creates a priority list, table, or database object of all detected ITS-S(s) as well as the local/ego ITS-S (e.g., the ITS-S that is creating the priority list). … In case of a prioritization, ranking, or classification tie between two or more stations, the ego ITS-S prioritizes (or ranks/classifies higher in the priority list) the stations based on their station types,” here the system creates a priority list for each vehicle when determining the maneuvers for each vehicle).
Therefore the combination of Jha and Weng teaches the amended instruction-path limitations requiring (i) an instruction path indicating a traffic priority for the vehicle that is compulsorily followed and (ii) if a message comprising the instruction path is transmitted, driving of the vehicle is controlled according to the instruction path compulsorily regardless of the planned path of the vehicle.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US-20220332350) in view of Weng (US 20230185311).
Regarding claim 1, Jha teaches a cooperative maneuvering method based on infrastructure guidance, the cooperative maneuvering method comprising (Paragraph [0005], "Maneuver Coordination Service (MCS), which defines an interaction protocol and corresponding messages to coordinate maneuvers between two or more vehicles,” here the system is using a coordination/cooperation method using infrastructure messages to coordinate maneuvers between vehicles)
receiving, by an edge RSU (road side unit), a first message comprising a planned path from each of at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0058], "In particular, MCS enables proximate V-ITS-Ss 110 to share their maneuver intentions (e.g., lane change, lane passes, overtakes, cut-ins, drift into ego lane, and the like), planned trajectory, detected traffic situations, ITS-S state, and/or other like information," here the vehicles are sharing their maneuver intentions/planned path with the roadside system) (FIG. 18 depicts an example roadside ITS-S in a roadside infrastructure node according to various embodiments)
determining, by the edge RSU, one of an agreed path and an instruction path as an infrastructure guidance path based on at least one of traffic situation information or traffic law information for the at least one vehicle when a conflict occurs between the at least one vehicle according to the planned path (Paragraph [0172-0174], "From the neighboring/proximate station action(s) estimation portion of process 1400 (FIG. 14a), at operation 1445 the ego ITS-S determines if the main local trajectory intersects with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the main trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission. If an intersection is identified/detected at operation 1445, then at operation 1450 the ego ITS-S checks whether the alternative trajectories intersect with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected for the alternative trajectory, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the alternative trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission. If all alternative trajectories intersect with ones in the selected trajectories list at operation 1450, then at operation 1455 the ego ITS-S elects an emergency stop, predicts the corresponding trajectory, moves it to the selected trajectories list, and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission.," here the system is evaluating the proposed trajectories to select one trajectory/guidance path to send to the vehicle, this guidance path may be a path that is agreed upon as having no conflicts/intersections)
and transmitting, by the edge RSU, a second message comprising the infrastructure guidance path to the at least one vehicle (Paragraph ]0173], "then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the alternative trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission") (Paragraph [0175], "Embodiments include MCM generation and transmission techniques for exchanging MCMs among proximate vehicles/stations for maneuver coordination with lower communication overhead than existing/conventional approaches," the system then announces/transmits the trajectory/guidance path to the vehicle)
wherein the planned path includes a local path plan of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0172-0173], "From the neighboring/proximate station action(s) estimation portion of process 1400 (FIG. 14a), at operation 1445 the ego ITS-S determines if the main local trajectory intersects with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list.”)
wherein the agreed path is rejected or agreed by the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0121-0123], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max) with impacted ITS-Ss 802 for each requested plan. At step 7b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 of the requested plan(s) evaluate and decide whether any of the requested maneuver plan(s) can be offered. New offered maneuver plans can also be suggested. At step 7c, negotiation response(s) are sent by the ITS-Ss 802 to indicate acceptance or rejection of the requested maneuver plan(s) using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM),” here a vehicle can accept or reject a negotiation request that is associated with a maneuver plan)
wherein the instruction path indicating a traffic priority for the at least one vehicle is compulsorily followed by the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).” here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute/compulsorily follow the selected maneuver plan) (Paragraph [0167-0168] “Referring to FIG. 14a, the station ordering portion of process 1400 includes operations 1405, 1410, and 1415. At operation 1405, the ego ITS-S creates a priority list, table, or database object of all detected ITS-S(s) as well as the local/ego ITS-S (e.g., the ITS-S that is creating the priority list). … In case of a prioritization, ranking, or classification tie between two or more stations, the ego ITS-S prioritizes (or ranks/classifies higher in the priority list) the stations based on their station types,” here the system creates a priority list for each vehicle when determining the maneuvers for each vehicle)
wherein, if the second message comprising the instruction path is transmitted, driving of the at least one vehicle is controlled according to the instruction path compulsorily regardless of the planned path of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).” here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute/compulsorily follow the selected maneuver plan) (Paragraph [0122], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max) with impacted ITS-Ss 802 for each requested plan.”) (Paragraph [0130], “If negotiation fails for N-Max-Negotiation Rounds, V-ITS-S 110 keeps Plan 0 and stops any further negotiation. Vehicle V5 sends Negotiation End message with Negotiation Result via a V2X message such as ET-MCM (with a Maneuver Coordination/Negotiation Container),” here the system includes a negotiation plan/agreed path and an default plan/instruction path, if negotiation fails the driving of the vehicle is controlled according to the default/instruction path)
and wherein the at least one vehicle is driven based on the infrastructure guidance path (Paragraph [0249], “The vehicle motion control 1608 may be included for computer-assisted and/or automated vehicles 110. Both the HMI entity 1606 and vehicle motion control entity 1608 may be triggered by one or more ITS-S applications. The vehicle motion control entity 1608 may be a function under the responsibility of a human driver or of the vehicle if it is able to drive in automated mode. The motion control 1608 is responsible for controlling moving and/or rotating parts of within the vehicle 110 in a well-defined manner. The motion control 1608 executes planned intentions by providing necessary inputs to the hardware and mechanical elements that will generate the desired motions.”) (Paragraph [0208], “The R-ITS-S 130 constantly, periodically, and/or in response to an event or trigger, broadcasts MCMs to relevant cooperative vehicles (e.g., subject vehicles 110, target vehicles 110). The relevant vehicles 110 operate according to received coordinated maneuvers.”).
However Jha does not explicitly teach wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle.
Weng teaches an assistance system/method for cooperative maneuver planning wherein for each vehicle, a planned trajectory and a desired trajectory are selected depending on a cost function including
wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0015], “wherein a desired trajectory of another vehicle is accepted by a vehicle during trajectory planning when a cost difference between the first trajectory and the third trajectory is less than a predetermined maximum cost increase value”) (Paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, it is provided that the minimum cost reduction value and/or the maximum cost increase value are specified taking into account vehicle features and/or a vehicle type,” here the system can agree or reject to a path based on a cost difference between the new path and the conflict path, this cost can be based on capabilities or thresholds of a vehicle for dynamic states).
Jha and Weng are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for cooperative vehicle maneuvering.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle of Weng in the system for cooperative vehicle maneuvering of Jha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to take into account a plurality of potential maneuvers and minimize the total cost of all vehicles while implementing cooperation and therefore improving a safety and efficiency (Paragraph [0030], “Some embodiments provide that the cost difference between the first trajectory and the second trajectory is also transmitted to each of the other vehicles when the second trajectory is transmitted as the desired trajectory, wherein the transmitted cost difference from the other vehicles is taken into account in the respective trajectory planning. Despite the benefits of the method for reduced data transmission, this allows group-related maneuver planning in which overall costs can be taken into account and minimized.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jha and Weng teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Jha further teaches wherein the determining comprises determining the planned path as the infrastructure guidance path when no conflict occurs between the at least one vehicle according to the planned path (Paragraph [0172-0174], "From the neighboring/proximate station action(s) estimation portion of process 1400 (FIG. 14a), at operation 1445 the ego ITS-S determines if the main local trajectory intersects with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the main trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission. If an intersection is identified/detected at operation 1445, then at operation 1450 the ego ITS-S checks whether the alternative trajectories intersect with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected for the alternative trajectory, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the alternative trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission,” here the system is determining a trajectory/infrastructure guidance path based on the determination of no intersections/conflicts between vehicles).
Regarding claim 5, Jha teaches a cooperative maneuvering apparatus based on infrastructure guidance, the cooperative maneuvering apparatus comprising (Paragraph [0005], "Maneuver Coordination Service (MCS), which defines an interaction protocol and corresponding messages to coordinate maneuvers between two or more vehicles,” here the system is using a coordination/cooperation method using infrastructure messages to coordinate maneuvers between vehicles)
a database configured to store data (Paragraph [0284-0285], "FIG. 21 illustrates an example of components that may be present in an edge computing node 2150 for implementing the techniques (e.g., operations, processes, methods, and methodologies) described herein. …To provide for persistent storage of information such as data, applications, operating systems and so forth, a storage 2158 may also couple to the processor 2152 via the IX 2156.")
and a processor configured to process data, wherein the processor is configured to (Paragraph [0284-0285], "FIG. 21 illustrates an example of components that may be present in an edge computing node 2150 for implementing the techniques (e.g., operations, processes, methods, and methodologies) described herein. … The edge computing node 2150 includes processing circuitry in the form of one or more processors 2152.")
receive a first message comprising a planned path from each of at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0058], "In particular, MCS enables proximate V-ITS-Ss 110 to share their maneuver intentions (e.g., lane change, lane passes, overtakes, cut-ins, drift into ego lane, and the like), planned trajectory, detected traffic situations, ITS-S state, and/or other like information," here the vehicles are sharing their maneuver intentions/planned path with the roadside system)
determine one of an agreed path and an instruction path as an infrastructure guidance path based on aat least one of traffic situation information or traffic law information for the at least one vehicle when a conflict occurs between the at least one vehicle according to the planned path (Paragraph [0172-0174], "From the neighboring/proximate station action(s) estimation portion of process 1400 (FIG. 14a), at operation 1445 the ego ITS-S determines if the main local trajectory intersects with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the main trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission. If an intersection is identified/detected at operation 1445, then at operation 1450 the ego ITS-S checks whether the alternative trajectories intersect with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected for the alternative trajectory, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the alternative trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission. If all alternative trajectories intersect with ones in the selected trajectories list at operation 1450, then at operation 1455 the ego ITS-S elects an emergency stop, predicts the corresponding trajectory, moves it to the selected trajectories list, and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission.," here the system is evaluating the proposed trajectories to select one trajectory/guidance path to send to the vehicle, this guidance path may be a path that is agreed upon as having no conflicts/intersections)
and transmit a second message comprising the infrastructure guidance path to the at least one vehicle (Paragraph ]0173], "then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the alternative trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission") (Paragraph [0175], "Embodiments include MCM generation and transmission techniques for exchanging MCMs among proximate vehicles/stations for maneuver coordination with lower communication overhead than existing/conventional approaches," the system then announces/transmits the trajectory/guidance path to the vehicle)
wherein the planned path includes a local path plan of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0172-0173], "From the neighboring/proximate station action(s) estimation portion of process 1400 (FIG. 14a), at operation 1445 the ego ITS-S determines if the main local trajectory intersects with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list.”)
wherein the agreed path is rejected or agreed by the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0121-0123], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max) with impacted ITS-Ss 802 for each requested plan. At step 7b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 of the requested plan(s) evaluate and decide whether any of the requested maneuver plan(s) can be offered. New offered maneuver plans can also be suggested. At step 7c, negotiation response(s) are sent by the ITS-Ss 802 to indicate acceptance or rejection of the requested maneuver plan(s) using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM),” here a vehicle can accept or reject a negotiation request that is associated with a maneuver plan)
wherein the instruction path indicating a traffic priority for the at least one vehicle is compulsorily followed by the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).” here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute/compulsorily follow the selected maneuver plan) (Paragraph [0167-0168] “Referring to FIG. 14a, the station ordering portion of process 1400 includes operations 1405, 1410, and 1415. At operation 1405, the ego ITS-S creates a priority list, table, or database object of all detected ITS-S(s) as well as the local/ego ITS-S (e.g., the ITS-S that is creating the priority list). … In case of a prioritization, ranking, or classification tie between two or more stations, the ego ITS-S prioritizes (or ranks/classifies higher in the priority list) the stations based on their station types,” here the system creates a priority list for each vehicle when determining the maneuvers for each vehicle)
wherein, if the second message comprising the instruction path is transmitted, driving of the at least one vehicle is controlled according to the instruction path compulsorily regardless of the planned path of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).” here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute/compulsorily follow the selected maneuver plan) (Paragraph [0122], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max) with impacted ITS-Ss 802 for each requested plan.”) (Paragraph [0130], “If negotiation fails for N-Max-Negotiation Rounds, V-ITS-S 110 keeps Plan 0 and stops any further negotiation. Vehicle V5 sends Negotiation End message with Negotiation Result via a V2X message such as ET-MCM (with a Maneuver Coordination/Negotiation Container),” here the system includes a negotiation plan/agreed path and an default plan/instruction path, if negotiation fails the driving of the vehicle is controlled according to the default/instruction path)
and wherein the at least one vehicle is driven based on the infrastructure guidance path (Paragraph [0249], “The vehicle motion control 1608 may be included for computer-assisted and/or automated vehicles 110. Both the HMI entity 1606 and vehicle motion control entity 1608 may be triggered by one or more ITS-S applications. The vehicle motion control entity 1608 may be a function under the responsibility of a human driver or of the vehicle if it is able to drive in automated mode. The motion control 1608 is responsible for controlling moving and/or rotating parts of within the vehicle 110 in a well-defined manner. The motion control 1608 executes planned intentions by providing necessary inputs to the hardware and mechanical elements that will generate the desired motions.”) (Paragraph [0208], “The R-ITS-S 130 constantly, periodically, and/or in response to an event or trigger, broadcasts MCMs to relevant cooperative vehicles (e.g., subject vehicles 110, target vehicles 110). The relevant vehicles 110 operate according to received coordinated maneuvers.”).
However Jha does not explicitly teach wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle.
Weng teaches an assistance system/method for cooperative maneuver planning wherein for each vehicle, a planned trajectory and a desired trajectory are selected depending on a cost function including
wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0015], “wherein a desired trajectory of another vehicle is accepted by a vehicle during trajectory planning when a cost difference between the first trajectory and the third trajectory is less than a predetermined maximum cost increase value”) (Paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, it is provided that the minimum cost reduction value and/or the maximum cost increase value are specified taking into account vehicle features and/or a vehicle type,” here the system can agree or reject to a path based on a cost difference between the new path and the conflict path, this cost can be based on capabilities or thresholds of a vehicle for dynamic states).
Jha and Weng are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for cooperative vehicle maneuvering.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle of Weng in the system for cooperative vehicle maneuvering of Jha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to take into account a plurality of potential maneuvers and minimize the total cost of all vehicles while implementing cooperation and therefore improving a safety and efficiency (Paragraph [0030], “Some embodiments provide that the cost difference between the first trajectory and the second trajectory is also transmitted to each of the other vehicles when the second trajectory is transmitted as the desired trajectory, wherein the transmitted cost difference from the other vehicles is taken into account in the respective trajectory planning. Despite the benefits of the method for reduced data transmission, this allows group-related maneuver planning in which overall costs can be taken into account and minimized.”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 3 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Jha teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a computer executable program configured to perform cooperative maneuvering, the cooperative maneuvering comprising (Paragraph [0284-0285], "FIG. 21 illustrates an example of components that may be present in an edge computing node 2150 for implementing the techniques (e.g., operations, processes, methods, and methodologies) described herein. …To provide for persistent storage of information such as data, applications, operating systems and so forth, a storage 2158 may also couple to the processor 2152 via the IX 2156.")
receiving a first message comprising a planned path from each of at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0058], "In particular, MCS enables proximate V-ITS-Ss 110 to share their maneuver intentions (e.g., lane change, lane passes, overtakes, cut-ins, drift into ego lane, and the like), planned trajectory, detected traffic situations, ITS-S state, and/or other like information," here the vehicles are sharing their maneuver intentions/planned path with the roadside system)
determining one of an agreed path and an instruction path as an infrastructure guidance path based on at least one of traffic situation information or traffic law information for the at least one vehicle when a conflict occurs between the at least one vehicle according to the planned path (Paragraph [0172-0174], "From the neighboring/proximate station action(s) estimation portion of process 1400 (FIG. 14a), at operation 1445 the ego ITS-S determines if the main local trajectory intersects with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the main trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission. If an intersection is identified/detected at operation 1445, then at operation 1450 the ego ITS-S checks whether the alternative trajectories intersect with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list. If no intersection is identified/detected for the alternative trajectory, then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the alternative trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission. If all alternative trajectories intersect with ones in the selected trajectories list at operation 1450, then at operation 1455 the ego ITS-S elects an emergency stop, predicts the corresponding trajectory, moves it to the selected trajectories list, and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission.," here the system is evaluating the proposed trajectories to select one trajectory/guidance path to send to the vehicle, this guidance path may be a path that is agreed upon as having no conflicts/intersections)
and transmitting a second message comprising the infrastructure guidance path to the at least one vehicle (Paragraph ]0173], "then at operation 1441 the ego ITS-S moves the alternative trajectory to the selected trajectories list and announces the selected trajectory in the following MCM transmission") (Paragraph [0175], "Embodiments include MCM generation and transmission techniques for exchanging MCMs among proximate vehicles/stations for maneuver coordination with lower communication overhead than existing/conventional approaches," the system then announces/transmits the trajectory/guidance path to the vehicle)
wherein the planned path includes a local path plan of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0172-0173], "From the neighboring/proximate station action(s) estimation portion of process 1400 (FIG. 14a), at operation 1445 the ego ITS-S determines if the main local trajectory intersects with any of the trajectories in the active trajectories list.”)
wherein the agreed path is rejected or agreed by the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0121-0123], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max) with impacted ITS-Ss 802 for each requested plan. At step 7b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 of the requested plan(s) evaluate and decide whether any of the requested maneuver plan(s) can be offered. New offered maneuver plans can also be suggested. At step 7c, negotiation response(s) are sent by the ITS-Ss 802 to indicate acceptance or rejection of the requested maneuver plan(s) using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM),” here a vehicle can accept or reject a negotiation request that is associated with a maneuver plan)
wherein the instruction path indicating a traffic priority for the at least one vehicle is compulsorily followed by the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).” here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute/compulsorily follow the selected maneuver plan) (Paragraph [0167-0168] “Referring to FIG. 14a, the station ordering portion of process 1400 includes operations 1405, 1410, and 1415. At operation 1405, the ego ITS-S creates a priority list, table, or database object of all detected ITS-S(s) as well as the local/ego ITS-S (e.g., the ITS-S that is creating the priority list). … In case of a prioritization, ranking, or classification tie between two or more stations, the ego ITS-S prioritizes (or ranks/classifies higher in the priority list) the stations based on their station types,” here the system creates a priority list for each vehicle when determining the maneuvers for each vehicle)
wherein, if the second message comprising the instruction path is transmitted, driving of the at least one vehicle is controlled according to the instruction path compulsorily regardless of the planned path of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0124], “At step 10a, the ITS-S 801 acts according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more maneuver tasks, etc.), and at step 10b, the impacted ITS-Ss 802 (if any) act according to the selected maneuver plan (e.g., executing one or more respective maneuver tasks, etc.).” here when the negotiation request is accepted the system will execute/compulsorily follow the selected maneuver plan) (Paragraph [0122], “At step 7, maneuver negotiation takes place, which includes steps 7a, 7b, and 7c. At step 7a, the ITS-S 801 sends a Negotiation Request to the ITS-Ss 802 using a suitable V2X msg (e.g., ET MCM). The Negotiation Request is a request for Coordination with a current maneuver plan (e.g., Plan 0) and one or more Requested Plans (e.g., Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . , Plan N.sub.max) with impacted ITS-Ss 802 for each requested plan.”) (Paragraph [0130], “If negotiation fails for N-Max-Negotiation Rounds, V-ITS-S 110 keeps Plan 0 and stops any further negotiation. Vehicle V5 sends Negotiation End message with Negotiation Result via a V2X message such as ET-MCM (with a Maneuver Coordination/Negotiation Container),” here the system includes a negotiation plan/agreed path and an default plan/instruction path, if negotiation fails the driving of the vehicle is controlled according to the default/instruction path)
and wherein the at least one vehicle is driven based on the infrastructure guidance path (Paragraph [0249], “The vehicle motion control 1608 may be included for computer-assisted and/or automated vehicles 110. Both the HMI entity 1606 and vehicle motion control entity 1608 may be triggered by one or more ITS-S applications. The vehicle motion control entity 1608 may be a function under the responsibility of a human driver or of the vehicle if it is able to drive in automated mode. The motion control 1608 is responsible for controlling moving and/or rotating parts of within the vehicle 110 in a well-defined manner. The motion control 1608 executes planned intentions by providing necessary inputs to the hardware and mechanical elements that will generate the desired motions.”) (Paragraph [0208], “The R-ITS-S 130 constantly, periodically, and/or in response to an event or trigger, broadcasts MCMs to relevant cooperative vehicles (e.g., subject vehicles 110, target vehicles 110). The relevant vehicles 110 operate according to received coordinated maneuvers.”).
However Jha does not explicitly teach wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle.
Weng teaches an assistance system/method for cooperative maneuver planning wherein for each vehicle, a planned trajectory and a desired trajectory are selected depending on a cost function including
wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0015], “wherein a desired trajectory of another vehicle is accepted by a vehicle during trajectory planning when a cost difference between the first trajectory and the third trajectory is less than a predetermined maximum cost increase value”) (Paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, it is provided that the minimum cost reduction value and/or the maximum cost increase value are specified taking into account vehicle features and/or a vehicle type,” here the system can agree or reject to a path based on a cost difference between the new path and the conflict path, this cost can be based on capabilities or thresholds of a vehicle for dynamic states).
Jha and Weng are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems and methods for cooperative vehicle maneuvering.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein, if the second message comprising the agreed path is transmitted, whether the at least one vehicle agrees or rejects the agreed path is determined by the at least one vehicle based on an amount of dynamic state change required with respect to a conflict of the at least one vehicle of Weng in the system for cooperative vehicle maneuvering of Jha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to take into account a plurality of potential maneuvers and minimize the total cost of all vehicles while implementing cooperation and therefore improving a safety and efficiency (Paragraph [0030], “Some embodiments provide that the cost difference between the first trajectory and the second trajectory is also transmitted to each of the other vehicles when the second trajectory is transmitted as the desired trajectory, wherein the transmitted cost difference from the other vehicles is taken into account in the respective trajectory planning. Despite the benefits of the method for reduced data transmission, this allows group-related maneuver planning in which overall costs can be taken into account and minimized.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haefner (US-20230322256) teaches a method of coordinating a maneuver among vehicles is presented including negotiating a maneuver among at least a first vehicle and a second vehicle, wherein the maneuver is specified at least in terms of one or more target road resources attributed to the first vehicle. Caldwell (US-11768493) teaches remote vehicle guidance wherein responsive to a determination that a waypoint and/or associated orientation violates the safety protocol and/or the remote guidance protocol, the vehicle computing system may reject the waypoint. Gogna (US-11349851) teaches a vehicle can determine that a guidance message is associated with the computing device and can evaluate the message based at least in part on configuration data associated with maneuvering the autonomous vehicle or state information associated with the autonomous vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights