DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 7/23/2024 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 7/24/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to as they use a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings (Figures 3-5) to represent items instead of the labels which actually make the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or the use of the specification to understand. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and metes and bounds of a claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot easily or clearly be derived without a specification or key or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished. Proper action is requested.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive or capture the claimed subject matter. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (Claims 1-7 and 9-12) in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on ground(s) “that why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required." To establish the serious burden, the Office Action is required to show by appropriate explanation one of the following: (i) separate classification thereof, (ii) a separate status in the art when they are classifiable together, and (iii) a different field of search. The statements provided in the Office Action, have not established a serious burden as required by MPEP § 808.02” and further “the Office Action has distinguished the identified species based on nonlimiting examples from the specification” and the Office respectfully disagrees with both remarks.
The first remark is not found persuasive because it remains the Office’s stance that there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth previously and again below because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Even though these two species pertain to controlling vehicles based on constraints, searching the claimed (Claims 8 and 9) distinct and separate mutually exclusive variations of controlling vehicles based on travelling constraints would add a serious burden to the Examiner as they are “a different field of search”. As stated previously and again here, Species I clearly requires both vehicles being on a track system with no vehicle between them while Species II requires vehicles be on a road, in adjacent lanes at an intersection, which does not read on Species I and clearly separate and distinct. Species II requires the two vehicles being on a road with intersections while Species I does not require such features, with tracks and not vehicles between. These clearly defined and non-overlapping differences would require separate search strategies in separate CPC classes for each Species, separate database queries for each separate and distinct Species, separate and distinct cited prior art for each Species with tracks, adjacent lanes, vehicle not between…, distinct mapping for each Species, and finally separate analysis for each Species, thus are both species would be clearly “a different field of search”.
The Office does agree that searching multiple databases and using multiple classes is known for proper claim analysis, but when Species are clearly mutually exclusive and diverge from each other and cannot be used together, as Claims 8-9 are, the Office must search “a different field of search” and further non-overlapping subject matter, thus adding serious burden to the Office. Therefore, based on the undue serious burden of these separate and distinct Species, an election of a single Specie was required. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
The second remark is not found persuasive because this remark does not appear true. Applicant has stated that that the Election of Species is “based on nonlimiting examples from the specification” and appears in error. Claims 8-9 are clearly the discussed two Species that the Office was suggesting. These two Species are not dependent on each other and further limit the claimed subject matter in Claim 1, into two different paths, diverging and into non-overlapping paths. Searching these two distinct and mutually exclusive paths is what would add the serious burden to the examiner and are clearly claimed.
If applicant is stating that these two Species are obvious variants of each other, that can be considered, and only one would need to be found, but these two Species are clearly claimed and not just “examples in the specification” and clearly require separate search strategies in separate CPC classes, separate database queries, separate and distinct cited prior art, distinct mapping, Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees with Applicants election with traverse.
Therefore the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Office Note: Once allowable subject matter is captured in the Independent claims, the non-elected Species may be rejoined.
Status of Application
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended.
Claim 8 has been withdrawn from consideration due to an “Election of Species” received on 3/5/2026, yet can be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Election of Species” received on 3/5/2026.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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)(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 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kum et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0172093).
With respect to Claim 1: Kum discloses “A computer-implemented method for moving a first mobile object at a traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0032, 0044-0047 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“comprising: determining a state of the first mobile object including a position, a velocity, or an acceleration of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0032, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used)];
“receiving a trajectory of a state of a second mobile object at the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0032, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (After a probabilistic motion of a surrounding vehicle is predicted using an artificial neural network structure)],
“the state of the second mobile object including a position, a velocity, or an acceleration of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0032, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (An artificial neural network structure using the current and past time-series longitudinal/lateral positions and/or velocity of the surrounding vehicle for a predetermined time as an input value is used)];
“determining a constraint for the state of the first mobile object based on the received trajectory of the state of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (At step 140, a probability of a collision likelihood is computed using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and longitudinal control for collision avoidance is performed)];
“determining a trajectory of the state of the first mobile object based on the state of the first mobile object using a model configured to predict the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object based on (i) a trajectory of a driving signal for moving the first mobile object, and (ii) the state of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“and determining the trajectory of the driving signal and the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object within the constraint for the state of the first mobile object as a function of a cost function” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“wherein the cost function defines a destination for movement of the first mobile object with the trajectory of the driving signal on the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“wherein the first mobile object is moved at the traffic node with the driving signal from the trajectory of the driving signal” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“wherein an admissible quantity for a state at an end of the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is predetermined” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“and wherein the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is determined, such that the state at an end of an optimization horizon lies in the admissible quantity” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 2: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: predetermining a constraint for the driving signal for the first mobile object, wherein the driving signal is determined within the constraint for the driving signal” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 3: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein a target state at the end of the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is predetermined” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“and the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object which comprises the target state at the end of the trajectory” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 4: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving one disturbance variable for the state of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“wherein the constraint for the state of the first mobile object is determined depending on the one disturbance variable for the state of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, admissible quantity, and now disturbance value for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 5: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the model comprises a disturbance variable for the state of the first mobile object.” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, admissible quantity, and now disturbance value for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 6: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: predetermining a sequence in which the first mobile object and the second mobile object are to be moved to the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (The longitudinal controller 940 computes a probability of a collision likelihood using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and performs longitudinal control for collision avoidance. In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using the cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“wherein the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is determined, which maintains the sequence” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (The longitudinal controller 940 computes a probability of a collision likelihood using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and performs longitudinal control for collision avoidance. In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using the cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 7: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising; determining the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object as a function of trajectories of states of mobile objects located in a predetermined area around the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0028, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (proposed probabilistic prediction for a motion of a lane-based surrounding vehicle and longitudinal control method using the same includes step 110 of obtaining surrounding vehicle information using a sensor)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 9: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the first mobile object and the second mobile object move on adjacent lanes in a same direction or on lanes intersecting at the traffic node towards the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (The longitudinal controller 940 computes a probability of a collision likelihood using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and performs longitudinal control for collision avoidance. In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using the cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 10: Kum discloses “A device for moving a first mobile object at a traffic node according to the method of claim 1” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 11: Kum discloses “A mobile object comprising the device of claim 10” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6].
With respect to Claim 12: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein a computer program comprises instructions which can be executed by a computer and during the execution of which by the computer the method is carried out.” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050, 0052, and 0071 with Figure 6 (Software may include a computer program, code, an instruction or a combination of one or more of them and may configure a processor so that it operates as desired or may instruct the processor independently or collectively. The software and/or data may be embodied in a machine, component, physical device, virtual equipment or computer storage medium or device of any type in order to be interpreted by the processor or to provide an instruction or data to the processor. The software may be distributed to computer systems connected over a network and may be stored or executed in a distributed manner. The software and data may be stored in one or more computer-readable recording media)].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights