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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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)(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, 3-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 15-21, 23, 25-27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zaiynali Farid et al. (US 20230394957 hereinafter Farid).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 12, 23 and 30), Farid teaches a method of maneuver sharing and coordination performed by a processing device of a remote vehicle (RV), the method comprising:
receiving a maneuver request message from a host vehicle (HV), the maneuver request message indicating a requested maneuver of the HV and driving context information of the HV, wherein the driving context information includes one or more characteristics of operating the HV (See at least: [0060] Referring back to FIG. 6, in step 620, the controller of the ego vehicle determines whether a traffic in the target lane becomes string unstable in response to an ego vehicle moving to the target lane based on learned car-following models and the traffic data.; [0062] Referring back to FIG. 6, in step 640, the controller of the ego vehicle generates a suggested speed profile for the identified connected vehicle based on the traffic data and the learned car following models. In embodiments, the ego vehicle 100 generates a suggested profile for the connected vehicle 110 based on the traffic data collected in step 610 and the learned car following models, that mitigates disturbance or string instability in the target lane 104.);
obtaining a determination result by determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted or rejected based on a planned maneuver of the RV, the requested maneuver of the HV, and the driving context information of the HV; and
transmitting a maneuver response message indicating the requested maneuver of the HV being accepted or rejected by the RV based on the determination result (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.).
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly 15 and 25), Farid teaches wherein the determination result corresponds to: the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted by the RV; the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted by the RV with one or more proposed modifications; the requested maneuver of the HV is rejected by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications; or the requested maneuver of the HV is rejected by the RV (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 16 and 26), Farid teaches wherein the one or more proposed modifications comprise: a proposed modification to the driving context information of the HV; a proposed modification to the requested maneuver of the HV; or both (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833. Note: When the request is declined, this can be considered a modification to the ego vehicles requested maneuver for the HV as it must stay the course instead of changing lanes). Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 27), Farid teaches wherein: the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted or rejected is further based on driving context information of the RV (See at least: [0060] Referring back to FIG. 6, in step 620, the controller of the ego vehicle determines whether a traffic in the target lane becomes string unstable in response to an ego vehicle moving to the target lane based on learned car-following models and the traffic data.; [0062] Referring back to FIG. 6, in step 640, the controller of the ego vehicle generates a suggested speed profile for the identified connected vehicle based on the traffic data and the learned car following models. In embodiments, the ego vehicle 100 generates a suggested profile for the connected vehicle 110 based on the traffic data collected in step 610 and the learned car following models, that mitigates disturbance or string instability in the target lane 104.; [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.).
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly 21 and 29), Farid teaches wherein the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted or rejected comprises: determining a maneuver safety factor associated with the requested maneuver of the HV based on kinematics of the HV, kinematics of the RV, the requested maneuver of the HV, the planned maneuver of the RV, the driving context information of the HV, driving context information of the RV, an environmental condition, one or more sensor inputs, or any combination thereof; and determining the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted based on the maneuver safety factor being greater than a reference value (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.).
Regarding claim 9, Farid teaches wherein the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted or rejected further comprises: determining, based on the maneuver safety factor being equal to or less than the reference value, whether the requested maneuver of the HV is rejected by the RV, accepted by the RV with one or more proposed modifications, rejected by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications, or rejected by the RV, based on the kinematics of the HV, the kinematics of the RV, the planned maneuver of the RV, the requested maneuver of the HV, the driving context information of the HV, the driving context information of the RV, the environmental condition, the one or more sensor inputs, or any combination thereof (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.).
Regarding claim 13, Farid teaches executing the requested maneuver of the HV indicated by the maneuver request message based on the one or more maneuver response messages indicating the requested maneuver of the HV indicated by the maneuver request message being accepted by the one or more RVs (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.).
Regarding claim 17, Farid teaches wherein: the one or more maneuver response messages indicates that the requested maneuver of the HV is rejected by at least one of the one or more RVs, and the method further comprises: transmitting a second maneuver request message to the one or more RVs, the second maneuver request message indicating an updated requested maneuver of the HV and the driving context information of the HV, the requested maneuver of the HV and updated driving context information of the HV, or the updated requested maneuver of the HV and the updated driving context information of the HV; and receiving second one or more maneuver response messages from the one or more RVs, the second one or more maneuver response messages indicating the requested maneuver of the HV or the updated requested maneuver of the HV indicated by the second maneuver request message being accepted or rejected by the one or more RVs (Refer at least to claim 1, as repeated use of Farid’s method can teach a second maneuver requests and messages.).
Regarding claim 18, Farid teaches wherein the one or more maneuver response messages indicate one or more proposed modifications to the driving context information of the HV, one or more proposed modifications to the requested maneuver of the HV, or both, and wherein: the updated requested maneuver of the HV is based on the one or more proposed modifications to the requested maneuver of the HV, the updated driving context information of the HV is based on the one or more proposed modifications to the driving context information of the HV, or both (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833. Note: When the request is declined, this can be considered a modification to the ego vehicles requested maneuver for the HV as it must stay the course instead of changing lanes. A subsequent request teaches an updated request maneuver).
Regarding claim 19, Farid teaches wherein: the updated requested maneuver of the HV satisfies all restrictions based on the one or more proposed modifications to the requested maneuver of the HV, the updated driving context information of the HV satisfies all restrictions based on the one or more proposed modifications to the driving context information of the HV, or both (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833. Note: When the request is declined, this can be considered a modification to the ego vehicles requested maneuver for the HV as it must stay the course instead of changing lanes. A subsequent request that is accepted teaches an updated request maneuver that has all restrictions satisfied.). Regarding claim 20, Farid teaches executing the requested maneuver of the HV or the updated requested maneuver of the HV indicated by the maneuver request message based on the second one or more maneuver response messages indicating the requested maneuver of the HV or the updated requested maneuver of the HV indicated by the second maneuver request message being accepted by the one or more RVs (See at least: [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833. Note: When the request is declined, this can be considered a modification to the ego vehicles requested maneuver for the HV as it must stay the course instead of changing lanes. A subsequent request that is accepted teaches an updated request maneuver that has all restrictions satisfied.). .
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.
Claims 2, 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid in view of Ucar et al. (US 20220289240 hereinafter Ucar).
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claims 14 and 24), Farid fails to teach the following limitation, but Ucar teaches wherein the one or more characteristics of operating the HV comprise: a driver’s profile; an autonomy level of the HV; an automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) of the HV; or any combination thereof (See at least: [0075] The driver profile data for the driver of an ego vehicle includes a combination of their particular driver data 174 and their particular index data (e.g., the ego index data 173 if the driver is a driver of the ego vehicle, or the remote index data 155 if the driver is a driver of a remote connected vehicle). Accordingly, the ego index data for a particular driver is associated with their driver data 174. The driver profile data 168 may include multiple instances of ego index data for a single driver since they have an instance of ego index data for each vehicle they drive. The driver profile data for a driver may be stored in a data structure of a server and downloaded by the management system of the ego vehicle as needed based on the determination of which particular driver is operating the ego vehicle at a given time (see, e.g., step 2). The management system includes code and routines that are operable to: retrieve the driver profile for the driver of the ego vehicle identified at step 2 of this method (e.g., by downloading the driver profile data 168 from the server 103); isolate the ego index data for the particular driver of the ego vehicle from the driver profile data; use the ego index data as the driver is driving the ego vehicle (e.g., as described in subsequent steps herein); updates the ego index data for the driver as new observations are made about their characteristic behaviors in different contexts; and update the driver profile data for the driver as stored in the data structure of the server to be inclusive of the new observations of the driver's characteristic behavior in different scenarios. An example of the server according to some embodiments includes the server 103 depicted in FIG. 1. An example of the data structure according to some embodiments includes the data structure 131 depicted in FIG. 1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Farid in view Ucar to teach wherein the one or more characteristics of operating the HV comprise: a driver’s profile; an autonomy level of the HV; an automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) of the HV; or any combination thereof so that the maneuver sharing and coordinating can be planned considering the particular driving habits of the ego vehicle.
Claims 6, 8, 10 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid in view of Singh (US 20250201120 hereinafter SIngh).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 28), Farid fails to teach the following limitation but Ucar teaches wherein: the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted or rejected is based on one or more machine learning models (See at least: [0004] In another embodiment, a method for local route planning includes sending a coordination request based on an intended action of an inquiry vehicle to one or more neighboring vehicles at a location using a communication device, determining whether a positive coordination response is received from a coordination vehicle out of the neighboring vehicles, in response to the received positive coordination response, communicating with the coordination vehicle to act according to the coordination request, and operating the inquiry vehicle according to the intended action.; [0023] Each of the vehicle modules and the server modules may include one or more machine learning algorithms or neural networks. The vehicle modules and the server modules may be trained and provided machine learning capabilities via a neural network as described herein. By way of example, and not as a limitation, the neural network may utilize one or more artificial neural networks (ANNs)… The one or more ANN models may employ a combination of artificial intelligence techniques, such as, but not limited to, Deep Learning, Random Forest Classifiers, Feature extraction from audio, images, clustering algorithms, or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, a convolutional neural network (CNN) may be utilized. For example, a convolutional neural network (CNN) may be used as an ANN that, in a field of machine learning,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Farid in view of Singh to teach wherein the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted or rejected is based on one or more machine learning models so that the HV and RV can interpret incoming data from other vehicles and improve its ability to predict maneuvers and actions.
Regarding claim 8, Farid teaches wherein the determining the maneuver safety factor 100 transmits a request for cooperation to the connected vehicle in step 815. The connected vehicle 110 receives the request and evaluates safety, efficiency, and comfort of the suggested speed profile received from the ego vehicle 100 in step 830. In step 831, the connected vehicle 110 determines whether following the suggested speed profile is feasible. For example, the connected vehicle 110 may determine whether following the suggested speed profile is feasible based on current traffic data in the target lane 104 including the presence of other vehicles and car following models of the other vehicles in the target lane 104.”; [0067] If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is feasible, the connected vehicle 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.).
but fails to teach determining the maneuver safety factor is based on a machine learning model.
However, Singh teaches using machine learning models (See at least: [0004] In another embodiment, a method for local route planning includes sending a coordination request based on an intended action of an inquiry vehicle to one or more neighboring vehicles at a location using a communication device, determining whether a positive coordination response is received from a coordination vehicle out of the neighboring vehicles, in response to the received positive coordination response, communicating with the coordination vehicle to act according to the coordination request, and operating the inquiry vehicle according to the intended action.; [0023] Each of the vehicle modules and the server modules may include one or more machine learning algorithms or neural networks. The vehicle modules and the server modules may be trained and provided machine learning capabilities via a neural network as described herein. By way of example, and not as a limitation, the neural network may utilize one or more artificial neural networks (ANNs)… The one or more ANN models may employ a combination of artificial intelligence techniques, such as, but not limited to, Deep Learning, Random Forest Classifiers, Feature extraction from audio, images, clustering algorithms, or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, a convolutional neural network (CNN) may be utilized. For example, a convolutional neural network (CNN) may be used as an ANN that, in a field of machine learning).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Farid in view of Singh to teach determining the maneuver safety factor is based on a machine learning model so that the HV and RV can interpret incoming data from other vehicles prior and determine if a maneuver is safe/feasible (i.e. maneuver safety factor) prior to making a maneuver in order to prevent any collisions when making a move.
Regarding claim 10, Farid teaches wherein the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications, rejected by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications, or rejected by the RV 110 accepts the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits an approval message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 832. If it is determined that following the suggested speed profile is not feasible, the connected vehicle 110 declines the request from the ego vehicle 100 and transmits a decline message to the ego vehicle 100 in step 833.)
but fails to teach wherein the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications, rejected by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications, or rejected by the RV is based on a machine learning model.
However, Singh teaches using machine learning models (See at least: [0004] In another embodiment, a method for local route planning includes sending a coordination request based on an intended action of an inquiry vehicle to one or more neighboring vehicles at a location using a communication device, determining whether a positive coordination response is received from a coordination vehicle out of the neighboring vehicles, in response to the received positive coordination response, communicating with the coordination vehicle to act according to the coordination request, and operating the inquiry vehicle according to the intended action.; [0023] Each of the vehicle modules and the server modules may include one or more machine learning algorithms or neural networks. The vehicle modules and the server modules may be trained and provided machine learning capabilities via a neural network as described herein. By way of example, and not as a limitation, the neural network may utilize one or more artificial neural networks (ANNs)… The one or more ANN models may employ a combination of artificial intelligence techniques, such as, but not limited to, Deep Learning, Random Forest Classifiers, Feature extraction from audio, images, clustering algorithms, or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, a convolutional neural network (CNN) may be utilized. For example, a convolutional neural network (CNN) may be used as an ANN that, in a field of machine learning).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Farid in view of Singh to teach wherein the determining whether the requested maneuver of the HV is accepted by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications, rejected by the RV with the one or more proposed modifications, or rejected by the RV is based on a machine learning model so that the HV and RV can interpret incoming data from other vehicles and improve its ability to predict maneuvers and actions.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid in view of Das et al. (US 20230254786 hereinafter Das).
Regarding claim 11 (and similarly 22), Farid fails to teach the following limitation, but Das teaches wherein: the maneuver response message further requests engaging in a raw sensor sharing session between the HV and the RV. (See at least: [0062] via “The RV 704 may transmit an SDSM 712 which may comprise a request to subscribe to the raw data advertised by the HV 702. In response, the HV may transmit a raw data exchange 714 to the RV 704.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Farid in view of Das to teach wherein: the maneuver response message further requests engaging in a raw sensor sharing session between the HV and the RV so that the respective vehicles can use the most detailed data to make decisions without compression or filtering causing any data loss during data transmission.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends that:
“First, independent claim 1 recites "receiving a maneuver request message from a host vehicle (HV), the maneuver request message indicating a requested maneuver of the HV and driving context information of the HV" (Emphasis added). Hence, the HV is requested a maneuver "of the HV" itself. By contrast, in FIG. 6 of Farid, the requesting vehicle (ego vehicle) is requesting another vehicle (identified connected vehicle) to perform the maneuver, e.g.: "[0063] Referring back to FIG. 6, in step 650, the controller of the ego vehicle requests that the identified connected vehicle drive based on the suggested speed profile."). Hence, the feature of "receiving a maneuver request message from a host vehicle (HV), the maneuver request message indicating a requested maneuver of the HV and driving context information of the HV" as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 12, 23, and 30 is not disclosed or suggested by Farid..”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, the Examiner notes the steps are performed on the processing device of a remote vehicle. Secondly, the ego vehicle of Farid in Fig. 6 is attempting to move to a target lane. Thus, the connected vehicle is receiving a “maneuver request” to adjust it’s speed so the ego vehicle can make a move to the target lane. So while the Applicant is correct in stating the ego vehicle in Farid is requesting the connected vehicle to perform a speed changing maneuver, the ego vehicle is doing so that the ego vehicle can move to a target lane.
The Applicant contends that:
“Second, the maneuver request sent at step 650 of FIG. 6 of Farid does not signal "driving context information of the HV" associated with the requesting vehicle (ego vehicle) as recited in independent claim 1 and the connected vehicle 110 does not make a decision as to whether to accept/reject the maneuver request at all, let alone based on criteria such as "a planned maneuver of the RV, the requested maneuver of the HV, and the driving context information of the HV" as recited in independent claim 1. The connected vehicle 110 of Farid simply appears to automatically accept and follow the maneuver request, e.g.:.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner contends the traffic data and learned car following model can teach “driving context information of the HV” according to broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (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 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.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
