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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 were amended.
This FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 01/07/2026.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/07/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101: Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. 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 below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 13, 16-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US PGPub 2025/003631).
With respect to claim 1: A method, comprising:
detecting a conflict involving an ego vehicle [Kim ¶ 0083 "upon determining that collision of a front wheel of the autonomous vehicle with the collision candidate vehicle occurs (S100)"];
predicting a geographic area occupied by a trajectory of the ego vehicle for a time period after the conflict [ Kim ¶ 0084 "the moving path of the autonomous vehicle may be estimated by increasing accuracy by periodically updating estimation of the moving path, which is estimated before collision." and Figure 4 S220 and ¶ 0088 "The autonomous driving controller 100 determines whether or not the autonomous vehicle breaches an adjacent lane based on the above-estimated moving path (S300)" The geographic area is either an adjacent lane or the same lane depending on the moving path.];
identifying one or more remote vehicles adjacent to the geographic area [Kim ¶ 0089 "Here, the autonomous driving controller 100 requests cooperative control from other vehicles located in the lane in which the autonomous vehicle is traveling (S311)."];
determining that the identified one or more remote vehicles are at risk of a secondary conflict based on the geographic area [Kim ¶ 0093 "Upon determining that the autonomous vehicle breaches the adjacent lane (S300), the autonomous driving controller 100 estimates secondary collision occurrence probabilities with other vehicles, and notifies related vehicles traveling in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle of a risk of secondary collision (S320)." adjacent lane = geographic area]; and
responsive to determining that the one or more remote vehicles are at risk of the secondary conflict, coordinating maneuvers with the one or more remote vehicles to avoid the secondary conflict with the one or more remote vehicles [Kim ¶ 0094 "That is to say, upon determining that the autonomous vehicle breaches an adjacent lane (S300), the autonomous driving controller 100 provides a collision-related warning to collision-related vehicles traveling in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle and traveling within a designated radius of the autonomous vehicle using the vehicle-to-vehicle technology, or the like (S330)."].
With respect to claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein coordinating maneuvers with the one or more remote vehicles to avoid the secondary conflict with the one or more remote vehicles comprises operating a given remote vehicle to avoid traveling into the geographic area [Kim ¶ 0094 “the autonomous driving controller 100 provides a collision-related warning to collision-related vehicles traveling in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle and traveling within a designated radius of the autonomous vehicle using the vehicle-to-vehicle technology, or the like (S330).”].
With respect to claim 6, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trajectory of the ego vehicle is determined based on at least one of intrinsic vehicle data obtained from sensors installed on the ego vehicle or extrinsic vehicle data obtained by the ego vehicle form another vehicle [Kim ¶ 0087 “Consequently, the behavior of the autonomous vehicle is estimated through the measurement values of the yaw rate sensor 115 and the acceleration sensor 116, which are within the normal ranges, before or after occurrence of the collision (S230), and, when the measurement values of the yaw rate sensor 115 and the acceleration sensor 116 are within abnormal ranges, i.e., exceed the respective limit values, the behavior of the autonomous vehicle is estimated using the camera 11, an around view monitor, the distance sensor, and the like, which are mounted in the autonomous vehicle, based on a vehicle dynamics model using the measurement values of the sensors 115 and 116, which are within the normal ranges (S220).”].
With respect to claim 7, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conflict involving the ego vehicle is detect to occur at a moment in time, and the trajectory of the ego vehicle is determined for the time period after the moment in time at which the conflict is detect to occur [Kim ¶ 0084 “the behavior of the autonomous vehicle may be accurately estimated by receiving yaw rate, longitudinal acceleration, and lateral acceleration information from the yaw rate sensor 115 and the acceleration sensor 166 in real time after occurrence of the collision,”].
With respect to claim 8, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the identified one or more remote vehicles are at risk of the secondary conflict further comprises;
Predicting trajectories of the identified one or more remote vehicles for the time period [Kim ¶ 0089 "Here, the autonomous driving controller 100 requests cooperative control from other vehicles located in the lane in which the autonomous vehicle is traveling (S311)." The trajectories are predicted in order to determine the other vehicles located in the lane.]; and
Determining that one or more trajectories corresponding to the identified one ore more vehicles intersects with the geographic area [Kim ¶ 0089 "Here, the autonomous driving controller 100 requests cooperative control from other vehicles located in the lane in which the autonomous vehicle is traveling (S311)." The geographic area is the lane.].
With respect to claim 13, 16, and, 17: Kim discloses A vehicle [Kim ¶ 0026 “A vehicle may include an autonomous driving controller”], comprising: a memory storing instructions [Kim ¶ 0054 “The autonomous driving controller 100 may include one or more processors and memory.”]; and one or more processors communicably coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to [Kim ¶ 0028 “ A non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor may include: program instructions that select a collision candidate vehicle configured to be collidable with an autonomous vehicle from among other vehicles based on a plurality of sensor signals from an autonomous driving sensor unit”]:
All additional limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1 and 8. The method taught/disclosed in claims 1, 5, and 8 can clearly perform on the system of claims 13, 16, and 17. Therefore, claims 13, 16, and 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 19: Kim discloses A system, the system comprising: a post-conflict negotiation circuit configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to [Kim ¶ 0028 “ A non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor may include: program instructions that select a collision candidate vehicle configured to be collidable with an autonomous vehicle from among other vehicles based on a plurality of sensor signals from an autonomous driving sensor unit”].
All additional limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform on the system of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 20: Kim discloses the system of claim 19. Kim further discloses wherein determining that the identified one or more remote vehicles are at risk of the secondary conflict further comprises:
predicting trajectories of the identified one or more remote vehicles for the time period [Kim ¶ 0089 "Here, the autonomous driving controller 100 requests cooperative control from other vehicles located in the lane in which the autonomous vehicle is traveling (S311)."]; and
determining that one or more trajectories corresponding to the identified one or more vehicles intersects with the geographic area [Kim ¶ 0089 "Here, the autonomous driving controller 100 requests cooperative control from other vehicles located in the lane in which the autonomous vehicle is traveling (S311)."].
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, 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.
Claims 2-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Rebhan (US PGPub 2016/0059855).
With respect to claim 2: Kim discloses the method of claim 1. Kim does not teach further comprising: determining a trajectory of an object involved in the conflict for the time period; wherein the geographic area is further predicted based on the determined trajectory of the object.
However, in a related field of invention, Rebhan does teach determining a trajectory of an object involved in the conflict for the time period; wherein the geographic area is further predicted based on the determined trajectory of the object [Rebhan ¶ 0095 "the time slices 25, 26 and 27 provide for each vehicle A 3 and B 5 a respective probability of position for the time t+Δt for slice 25, t+2Δt for slice 26 and time t+NΔt for slice 27" and Figure 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using trajectory of an object to define a geographic area as taught by Rebhan in order to more accurately predict an area to avoid due to a conflict.
With respect to claim 3: Kim as modified by Rebhan teaches the method of claim 2. Rebhan further teaches wherein predicting the geographic area comprises: predicting a first sub-region based on the trajectory of the ego vehicle; predicting a second sub-region based on the trajectory of the object; and predicting the geographic area based on combining the first and second sub-regions [Rebhan ¶0097-98 "The data describing the traffic environment 17 acquired by the data acquisition means, the prediction information on the future movement behavior 19 of the target vehicles A 3 and B 5 involved in the collision as well as the further prediction information on the future behavior of further target objects 21 not involved in the collision are input to the host vehicle evasion trajectory planning module 16." The host vehicle avoids the area that is occupied by both target vehicles which is combing two areas into one.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using multiple trajectories to define a geographic area as a combination of the trajectories as taught by Rebhan in order to more accurately predict an area to avoid due to a conflict.
With respect to claim 4: Kim as modified by Rebhan teaches the method of claim 3. Rebhan further teaches wherein the predicted geographic area defines an area that encompasses the combined first and second sub-regions plus a clearance region [Rebhan ¶ 0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using multiple trajectories to define a geographic area as a combination of the trajectories with an additional clearance region as taught by Rebhan in order to more accurately predict an area to avoid due to a conflict.
With respect to claim 14: Kim discloses the vehicle of claim 13. Kim does not teach herein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: determine a trajectory of an object involved in the conflict for the time period; wherein the geographic area is further predicted based on the determined trajectory of the object.
However, in a related field of invention, Rebhan does teach determining a trajectory of an object involved in the conflict for the time period; wherein the geographic area is further predicted based on the determined trajectory of the object [Rebhan ¶ 0095 "the time slices 25, 26 and 27 provide for each vehicle A 3 and B 5 a respective probability of position for the time t+Δt for slice 25, t+2Δt for slice 26 and time t+NΔt for slice 27" and Figure 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using trajectory of an object to define a geographic area as taught by Rebhan in order to more accurately predict an area to avoid due to a conflict.
With respect to claim 15: Kim discloses the vehicle of claim 13. Kim does not teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: predict a first sub-region based on the trajectory of the vehicle; predict a second sub-region based on the trajectory of the object; and predict the geographic area based on combining the first and second sub-regions.
However, in a related field of invention, Rebhan does teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: predict a first sub-region based on the trajectory of the vehicle; predict a second sub-region based on the trajectory of the object; and predict the geographic area based on combining the first and second sub-regions [Rebhan ¶0097-98 "The data describing the traffic environment 17 acquired by the data acquisition means, the prediction information on the future movement behavior 19 of the target vehicles A 3 and B 5 involved in the collision as well as the further prediction information on the future behavior of further target objects 21 not involved in the collision are input to the host vehicle evasion trajectory planning module 16." The host vehicle avoids the area that is occupied by both target vehicles which is combing two areas into one.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using multiple trajectories to define a geographic area as a combination of the trajectories as taught by Rebhan in order to more accurately predict an area to avoid due to a conflict.
Claims 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jha (US PGPub 2022/0332350).
With respect to claim 9, Kim discloses the method of claim 8. Kim does not teach receiving, by the ego vehicle from the plurality of remote vehicles, at least one of: Basic Safety Messages, Maneuver Messages, and Sensor Data Messages, wherein at least one of detecting of the plurality of remote vehicles and predicting of trajectories of the plurality of remote vehicles is based on the at least one of: Basic Safety Messages, Maneuver Messages, and Sensor Data Messages.
However, in a related field of invention, Jha does teach receiving, by the ego vehicle from the plurality of remote vehicles, at least one of: Basic Safety Messages, Maneuver Messages, and Sensor Data Messages [Jha ¶ 0067 "Additionally or alternatively, each V-ITS-S 110 may also share planned maneuver (e.g., its maneuver intentions, planned trajectory, detected traffic situations) periodically by broadcasting Maneuver Coordination Messages (MCMs)."],
wherein at least one of detecting of the plurality of remote vehicles and predicting of trajectories of the plurality of remote vehicles is based on the at least one of: Basic Safety Messages, Maneuver Messages, and Sensor Data Messages [Jha ¶ 0067 "Additionally or alternatively, each V-ITS-S 110 may also share planned maneuver (e.g., its maneuver intentions, planned trajectory, detected traffic situations) periodically by broadcasting Maneuver Coordination Messages (MCMs)."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using maneuver messages as taught by Jha in order to more effectively coordinate maneuvers.
With respect to claim 10: Kim discloses the method of claim 1. Kim does not teach transmitting, by the ego vehicle to the identified one or more remote vehicles, one or more maneuver messages that comprise information indicating that the ego vehicle reserved the geographic area for the time period.
However, in a related field of invention, Jha does disclose transmitting, by the ego vehicle to the identified one or more remote vehicles, one or more maneuver messages that comprise information indicating that the ego vehicle reserved the geographic area for the time period [Jha ¶ 0146-0148 "The Layered Cost Map Container includes a Cost Map of the area impacted by a station's maneuver, neighbors' maneuvers, and maneuver coordination requested by the neighbor(s). . . . Additionally, the “cost” of the cost map can be a cost as perceived by the station at a current time and/or a cost predicted at a specific future time (e.g., at a future time when the station intends to move to a new lane under a lane change maneuver)."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using maneuver messages as taught by Jha in order to more effectively coordinate maneuvers.
With respect to claim 11: Kim as modified by Jha disclose the method of claim 10. Jha further discloses wherein the one or more maneuver messages comprises one or more recommended trajectories for the identified one or more remote vehicles to avoid the geographic area [Jha ¶ 0126-0129 "Vehicle V5 now sends Negotiation offer via a V2X message such as ET-MCM (with a Maneuver Coordination/Negotiation Container) to the group requesting for Coordination to change its current maneuver plan (Plan 0).Negotiation offer carries Plan 0 and Requested Plans (Plan 1, Plan 2, . . . Plan Nmax) with impacted V-ITS-Ss 110 for each requested plan." and ¶ 0131 "Selected Maneuver Plan may include one or more of the following data items: Selected Maneuver Plan ID; Planned Tasks with following Info for each Task: trajectory," The negotiation offer is a maneuver coordination message that include recommended trajectories.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using maneuver messages with recommended trajectories as taught by Jha in order to more effectively coordinate maneuvers.
With respect to claim 12: Kim as modified by Jha disclose the method of claim 10. Jha further discloses wherein the one or more maneuver messages are one of: Maneuver Coordination Messages and Maneuver Sharing Coordination Messages [Jha ¶ 0067 "Additionally or alternatively, each V-ITS-S 110 may also share planned maneuver (e.g., its maneuver intentions, planned trajectory, detected traffic situations) periodically by broadcasting Maneuver Coordination Messages (MCMs)."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using Maneuver Coordination Messages as taught by Jha in order to more effectively coordinate maneuvers.
With respect to claim 18: Kim discloses the vehicle of claim 13. Kim does not teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: transmit, to the identified one or more remote vehicles, one or more maneuver messages that comprise information indicating that the vehicle reserved the geographic area for the time period.
However, in a related field of invention, Jha does teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: transmit, to the identified one or more remote vehicles, one or more maneuver messages that comprise information indicating that the vehicle reserved the geographic area for the time period [Jha ¶ 0146-0148 "The Layered Cost Map Container includes a Cost Map of the area impacted by a station's maneuver, neighbors' maneuvers, and maneuver coordination requested by the neighbor(s). . . . Additionally, the “cost” of the cost map can be a cost as perceived by the station at a current time and/or a cost predicted at a specific future time (e.g., at a future time when the station intends to move to a new lane under a lane change maneuver)."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the secondary collision avoidance control system as taught by Kim with using maneuver messages as taught by Jha in order to more effectively coordinate maneuvers.
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 JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached at (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 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights