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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1, 3, 6-18, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwoczek et al US 2020/0239030 A1 (hence Kwoczek).
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 selected and communicated 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”)
In re claim 2, Kwoczek teaches the following:
the system comprises a wireless communication device connected to 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, Kwoczek teaches the following:
wherein the processor device is further configured to generate messages for communicating the cooperative guidance action to the one or more communicatively connected vehicles via the vehicular micro cloud (Paragraphs 0021, and 0074-0076)
In re claims 7 and 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)
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 16, Kwoczek discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claims 1-3, and 7-8 above.
In re claim 17, Kwoczek discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claim 4 above.
In re claim 18, Kwoczek discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claim 6 above.
In re claim 19, Kwoczek discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claim 9 above.
In re claim 20, Kwoczek discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claim 10 above.
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.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwoczek 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 “detecting an unsafe vehicle maneuver of a subject vehicle”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. Kwoczek, Paragraph 0046, discloses “blocked by another transportation vehicle” and “an accident” and both read on “an unsafe vehicle maneuver of a subject vehicle”.
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, the ego vehicle itself generates a cooperative guidance action and communicates that cooperative guidance action to one or more communicatively connected vehicles within a wireless communication range, 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., the ego vehicle itself generates a cooperative guidance action and communicates that cooperative guidance action to one or more communicatively connected vehicles within a wireless communication range) 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). Furthermore, Kwoczek discloses the recited feature in at least Paragraph 0059 “There are multiple options for determining the proposed path or route section” and 0061 “car 100 is driving by itself based on the proposed path”.
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 selected and communicated 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”.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwoczek and Philipp and that Philipp does not disclose an affirmative detection of a presently occurring "unsafe vehicle maneuver" based on movement-associated data in the driving environment, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. Philipp discloses, in Paragraph 0005, “calculates a risk factor for the at least one neighboring vehicle by recognizing a behavior of the at least one neighboring vehicle from the perception images and plans the path for the vehicle based on the at least one perception task and the risk factor. The path is then executed for the vehicle”. Accordingly, the risk factor is with respect to a neighboring vehicle. Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s argument that Philipp does not discuss a proximity factor within the vehicle's "wireless communication range”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. A neighboring vehicle within the range of the perception image capturing device reads on within the vehicle's "wireless communication range” (see at least Paragraph 0005). Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s argument that Philipp doesn’t appear to teach leveraging connected-vehicle context to obtain movement data for a detection decision, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. It is not clear to the examiner where in claim 11 said limitation is recited. 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).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as recited above, Kwoczek discloses the claimed invention and the examiner relies on Philipp to teach the limitation of data related to movement in order to plan a path for the vehicle based on the at least one perception task and the risk factor (Philipp, Abstract).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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