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 .
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.
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) 1-2, 4-7 & 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al., “monte carlo tree search for behavior planning in autonomous driving”, NPL IDS document number 3 from applicant filed IDS on 09/14/2026, (hereafter Wen), in view of Li et al., “comfort aware lane change planning with exit strategy for autonomous vehicle”, NPL IDS document number 2 from applicants filed IDS on 09/14/2026, (hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Wen to have, “A method of routing an autonomous vehicle [please see abstract of Wen where they state having a system that controls autonomous vehicle], the method comprising: maneuvering, by one or more processors [figure at top of page 118 shows a “controller”], the autonomous vehicle along a route in a first lane [page 117 column 1 section labeled “introduction” where they cite their system being able to carry out lane changes]; determining, by the one or more processors, a maximum duration during which a lane change transition between the first lane and a second lane different from the first lane can be completed based on a speed limit associated with at least one of the first lane and the second lanes and a distance associated with the lane change transition [at least pages 117-120, where they disclose how they system determines a cost based on the lane change that the vehicle needs to carry out , where the speed of the vehicle is also a constrains as it considers the speed of the vehicle as it changes lanes, the vehicle also has to obey “traffic rules” as described in column 1 page 119 , where this would also include the speed limit as this is a traffic rule];….”
Li is directed to a autonomous vehicle control system for lanes changing and in at least page 2929, column 1 they do describe their system using time and the time it take for a typical lane change, which is called “the time duration of interest”, where the objective is to maximize the average speed and minimize the impact on other conventional vehicles. They also use some restrictions such as the speed limit of the lanes where the lanes are given two speed limits Vmin and Vmax. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “… maximum duration during which a lane change transition between the first lane and a second lane different from the first lane can be completed based on a speed limit associated with at least one of the first lane and the second lanes and a distance associated with the lane change transition and identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of possible lane change opportunities having respective durations up to a maximum duration.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wen by Li, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle control systems for at least lane control during lane changing by the vehicle. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Wen by Li by the use of a known technique to improve a known device in the same way. In this instance the modification of Wen by Li, where Li teaches reducing the impact of autonomous lane changing in autonomous vehicle which may cause traffic jam due to the impact of the autonomous lane change by the vehicle on surrounding vehicles, see section labeled “II. problem statement.” In Li page 2928.
Regarding claim 2 where it is disclosed by Wen in at least page 119 columns 1 and 2 to have their system include the feature of using “vehicle kinematics constraints” to control the lane changing which includes the “acceleration and deceleration” of the vehicle. Where the vehicles “jerk cost is considered to make sure the lane change motion is smooth and pleasant, see column 2 of page 119. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “wherein the maximum duration is selected such that at least one of lateral acceleration, lateral jerk, or yaw rate of the autonomous vehicle during the lane change transition does not exceed a predetermined threshold.”
Regarding claim 4 where it is disclosed by Wen in at least page 121 column 1 section labeled, “Qualitative Results”, where they cite the use of map data. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “the maneuvering is performed using map information identifying a first plurality of nodes representing locations within a the first lane, a second plurality of nodes representing locations within the second lane, and the speed limit.”
Regarding claim 5 where it is further disclosed by Wen in at least pages 119-121 to have their system also, “identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of pairs of the nodes corresponding to different possible transitions between the first lane and the second lane, each pair of the nodes including a first node of the first plurality of nodes corresponding to the first lane and a second node of the second plurality of nodes corresponding to the second lane.”
Regarding claim 6 where it is further disclosed by both Wen and Li in at least pages 119-122 of Wen and Li in at least pages 2930-2937, to both have their system teach, “assessing, by the one or more processors, a cost for each pair of nodes of the plurality of pairs of the nodes to perform a lane change.”
Regarding claim 7 where it is disclosed by Wen in at least pages 122-123 to have their system also, “determining, by the one or more processors, whether the autonomous vehicle is able to perform the lane change transition from the first lane to the second lane to follow the route using the assessed cost.”
Regarding claim 17 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 19 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 4 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 5 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 21 which is the corresponding non-transitory computer program product claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, 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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights