DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 04/23/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 12, 16, and 18 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a detection of a maneuver by another as a maneuver, i.e. an ongoing movement-based maneuver of that other vehicle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A broadest reasonable interpretation of an unsafe vehicle maneuver reads on an accident involving another vehicle, or another vehicle blocking a road as disclosed by Kwoczek in Paragraph 0046.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kwoczek and that Kwoczek doesn’t teach or suggest in response to the detected unsafe vehicle maneuver, generate a cooperative guidance action for the ego vehicle, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. First, the claim doesn’t require the go vehicle generating the cooperative guidance action. Accordingly, generating or obtaining driving instructions for a route section as part of a network-assisted workflow, as disclosed by Kwoczek in Paragraphs 0014-0017, 0059, and 0061 reads on the claimed limitation.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kwoczek and that Kwoczek doesn’t teach or suggest wherein the cooperative guidance action is communicated to one or more communicatively connected vehicles within a wireless communication range in the vicinity of the driving environment, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a real-time, local wireless-range communication from the ego vehicle that coordinates nearby connected vehicles to take cooperative actions that facilitate the ego vehicle's immediate maneuver) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Distributing a route solution for each vehicle's own later traversal of a fixed exceptional location, as taught by Kwoczek in Paragraph 0052, would read on the claim limitation “wherein the cooperative guidance action is communicated to one or more communicatively connected vehicles within a wireless communication range in the vicinity of the driving environment”.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, page 10, filed on 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwoczek, and that Kwoczek does not disclose “wherein the cooperative guidance action comprises a maneuver request message that transmits a request to at least one of the one or more communicatively connected vehicles to perform a cooperative maneuver to enable execution of the cooperative guidance action by the ego vehicle” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kwoczek and Rech et al US 2019/0098471 A1 as detailed below.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kwoczek and that Kwoczek doesn’t teach or suggest “a controller device executing autonomous actions to maneuver the ego vehicle based on the cooperative guidance action", the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, Kwoczek discloses in Paragraph 0061 “car 100 is driving by itself based on the proposed path” and “automatically operating the transportation vehicle along the route section”, and Fig.6 and Paragraphs 0074-0075 “The following transportation vehicles hV2, hV3 101, 102 can then use the proposed stored path”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwoczek et al US 2020/0239030 A1 (hence Kwoczek) in view of Rech et al US 2019/0098471 A1 (hence Rech).
In re claims 1 and 12, Kwoczek discloses a concept for determining a route section for overcoming an exceptional traffic situation of a transportation vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a processor device configured to analyze data associated with a driving environment of an ego vehicle (Paragraph 0032, and 0046);
detect an unsafe vehicle maneuver of a subject vehicle present in the driving environment of the ego vehicle based on the analyzed data (Paragraph 0046 “blocked by another transportation vehicle” and “an accident”);
and in response to the detected unsafe vehicle maneuver, generate a cooperative guidance action for the ego vehicle (Paragraphs 0014-0017), wherein the cooperative guidance action is communicated to one or more communicatively connected vehicles within a wireless communication range in the vicinity of the driving environment (Fig.4, #100, #101, #102, and Paragraph 0052 “some disclosed embodiments therefore store information related to a route information or information related to driving instructions solving an unexpected traffic situation, such that the information can be re-used later on to solve the situation for other transportation vehicles as well”); and a controller device executing autonomous actions to maneuver the ego vehicle based on the cooperative guidance action (Paragraph 0061 “car 100 is driving by itself based on the proposed path” and “automatically operating the transportation vehicle along the route section”, and Fig.6 and Paragraphs 0074-0075 “The following transportation vehicles hV2, hV3 101, 102 can then use the proposed stored path”)
However, Kwoczek doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the cooperative guidance action comprises a maneuver request message that transmits a request to at least one of the one or more communicatively connected vehicles to perform a cooperative maneuver to enable execution of the cooperative guidance action by the ego vehicle
Nevertheless, Rech discloses a method, devices and computer program for initiating and/or carrying out a cooperative driving maneuver (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the cooperative guidance action comprises a maneuver request message that transmits a request to at least one of the one or more communicatively connected vehicles to perform a cooperative maneuver to enable execution of the cooperative guidance action by the ego vehicle (Fig.2, Paragraph 0036 “a transportation vehicle 2002 is shown, which would intends to enter a freeway and merge into the traffic. To this end, it sends a driving intention message, for example, to the transportation vehicles 2004 in the environment, which message comprises an intention to merge into a traffic gap 2100. The transportation vehicles 2004 in the environment can be designed to receive the driving intention message and to actively or passively enable a cooperative maneuver based on the driving intention message”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Kwoczek reference to include initiating and/or carrying out a cooperative driving maneuver, as taught by Rech, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase driving safety and enable the transportation vehicle (or a driver of the transportation vehicle) to carry out the driving maneuver more easily (Rech, Paragraph 0018).
In re claim 2, Kwoczek teaches the following:
the system comprises a wireless communication device connected to the one or more communicatively connected vehicles via a vehicular micro cloud (Fig.3, and Paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0038, and 0075)
In re claims 3 and 13, Kwoczek teaches the following:
the processor device is further configured to determine a formation strategy for the vehicular micro cloud based on the data associated with the driving environment of the ego vehicle (Fig.6, vehicles 100-102, and Paragraphs 0074 and 0075 “an efficient concept for guiding a plurality of transportation vehicles around an obstacle 500 by re-using a path determined by a first transportation vehicle 100 for other transportation vehicles 101, 102 subsequently passing the same obstacle 500”)
In re claim 4, Kwoczek teaches the following:
wherein the formation strategy for the vehicular micro cloud comprises at least one of: a stationary vehicular micro cloud; a mobile vehicular micro cloud; a chain of interdependent vehicular micro clouds; and a remote vehicular micro cloud (Fig.6, and Paragraphs 0074-0075)
In re claim 5, Kwoczek teaches the following:
vehicle sensors generating the data associated with the driving environment (Paragraph 0046)
In re claims 6 and 14, Rech teaches the following:
wherein the cooperative guidance action is communicated to the one or more communicatively connected vehicles via the vehicular micro cloud (Paragraph 0150 “a data communication connection, for example, via the internet or any other network”), and wherein the maneuver request message comprises timing information for the cooperative maneuver (Paragraph 0016 “the transmission parameters comprise a repetition rate and a time of transmission”)
In re claim 7, Rech teaches the following:
wherein the maneuver request message is transmitted prior to the controller device executing the autonomous actions to maneuver the ego vehicle (Fig.2, Paragraph 0036)
In re claim 8, Kwoczek teaches the following:
wherein the processor device is further configured to generate control commands to effectuate the autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle based on the cooperative guidance action (Paragraphs 0021, and 0074-0076)
In re claim 9, Kwoczek teaches the following:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the formation strategy for the vehicular micro cloud based on one or more defined parameters associated with the driving environment (Fig.6, vehicles 100-102, and Paragraphs 0074 and 0075 “an efficient concept for guiding a plurality of transportation vehicles around an obstacle 500 by re-using a path determined by a first transportation vehicle 100 for other transportation vehicles 101, 102 subsequently passing the same obstacle 500”)
In re claim 10, Kwoczek teaches the following:
wherein a trained model stored in memory selects a cooperative guidance action and vehicular micro-cloud formation strategy based on the one or more defined parameters associated with the driving environment (Paragraph 0077)
In re claim 15, Kwoczek teaches the following:
wherein the communicated cooperative guidance action effectuates one or more autonomous actions to maneuver the one or more communicatively connected vehicles in collaboration with the ego vehicle (Fig.6, and Paragraphs 0074-0075)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwoczek in view of Rech and further in view of Philipp et al US 2024/0391489 A1 (hence Philipp).
In re claim 11, Kwoczek discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the processor device is further configured to detect the unsafe vehicle maneuver present in the driving environment based on obtaining data associated with the movement of the subject vehicle present within the wireless communication range of the ego vehicle
Nevertheless, Philipp discloses a system and a method for path planning of autonomous vehicles (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the processor device is further configured to detect the unsafe vehicle maneuver present in the driving environment based on obtaining data associated with the movement of the subject vehicle present within the wireless communication range of the ego vehicle (Paragraphs 0002 and 0005)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Kwoczek reference to include identifying at least one neighboring vehicle and calculating a risk factor for the at least one neighboring vehicle, as taught by Philipp, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to plan a path for the vehicle based on the at least one perception task and the risk factor (Philipp, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights