DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the amended claims filed on 12/12/2025.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending.
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 .
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.
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(s) 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isele et al. (US 2022/0185326) in further view of Halder (US 2019/0310636).
As to claims 1 and 12 Isele discloses a method of executing a lane change for a vehicle, the method comprising:
generating a dynamic lane-level forward graph including a plurality of nodes for a road (Figure 4);
computing weights for each action of a vehicle traveling from one node to a next node (paragraph 0056);
determining values of different actions for the vehicle based on the dynamic lane-level forward graph starting from a node of the vehicle to a node of destination and the weights for each action of the vehicle (paragraphs 0076);
selecting an action among the different actions based on a comparison of the values of the different actions (paragraph 0114 and figure 3)); and
instructing the vehicle to execute the selected action for the vehicle (figure 4).
However Isele does not disclose the pruning the dynamic lane-level forward graph based on actions available at the plurality of the nodes;
Halder discloses it is known in the art at the time of filing to prune the nodes according the goal/Action of the vehicle (see paragraph 0237). This pruning is from the dynamic controls being calculated by the vehicle. If the vehicle is turning the decision tree removes the nodes not necessary in making the dynamic decision of turning (see paragraph 0237). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prune the unneeded nodes as disclosed in paragraph 0237 because it removes the complexity as there can be a large number of nodes as disclosed in paragraph 0237.
As to claims 2 and 13 Isele discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the values (cost) of different actions for the vehicle are determined further based on a probability of the vehicle being in each of lanes of the road (shown in figure 5).
As to claims 3 and 14 Isele discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the probability of the vehicle being in each of the lanes of the road is calculated based on image data captured by the vehicle (paragraph 00114 from the camara 302).
As to claims 4 and 15 Isele discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nodes comprise one or more static nodes, one or more semi-static nodes, one or more dynamic nodes (building, paragraph 0082), or any combination thereof (paragraphs 0028 - 0029 and 0071 discloses the semi-static and dynamic nodes of traffic flow as disclosed in figure 5).
As to claims 5 and 16 Isele discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising assigning one or more of the static nodes based on map data including one or more lane markers (paragraph 0025 the lane departure warning system and lane keep assist system).
As to claims 6 and 17 Isele discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying one or more lane-level states, the one or more lane-level states including a traffic jam, a pothole, a risk of a crash, a road surface, a comfort level, one or more vehicle incidents, or any combination thereof. (Paragraph 0031 slow traffic, i.e. traffic jam)
As to claims 7 and 18 Isele discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising adding one or more static events, one or more semi-static events, one or more dynamic events, or any combination thereof, to the dynamic lane-level forward graph whose location determines the addition of one or more nodes at a beginning and an ending of one or more lanes (shown in figure 5 as other).
As to claim 8 Isele discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising prohibiting the addition of one or more nodes to the dynamic lane-level forward graph based on a predetermined threshold distance relative to the one or more static events, the one or more semi-static events, the one or more dynamic events, or any combination thereof. (shown in figure 4 the nodes outside of the road are not added/prohibited from the forward graphs on figure 4 and 5)
As to claim 9 Isele discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising computing the weights based on an estimation of utility that takes into account vehicle travel on a link, lane changes, and traffic congestion (shown in figure 4 the travel link and figure 5 the lane changes and congestion with the other objects).
As to claims 11 and 20 Isele discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selected action is going straight, changing lanes to a left, or changing lanes to a right (shown in figure 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 11-20 under 102(a)(1) 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 Isele et al. (US 2022/0185326) in further view of Halder (US 2019/0310636).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 est.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747