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 .
Status of Claims
Pending
1, 3-6
Cancelled
2
35 U.S.C. 103
1, 3-6
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 02/12/2026, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 11/26/2025. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vassilovski et al. (US 2020/0339124 A1, “Vassilovski”) and further in view of Lacaze et al. (US 2024/0378994 A1, “Lacaze”).
Regarding claim 1: Vassilovski teaches: A method for operating an automated vehicle at a traffic intersection, the method comprising the following steps: ([0037] methods, means, apparatuses in autonomous vehicle; Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection):
detecting, by the automated vehicle, surrounding area data values, wherein the surrounding area data values represent a surrounding area of the automated vehicle, which includes the traffic intersection and objects in the surrounding area; ([0004] autonomous vehicle behavior. [0042] vehicle sensors to detect environment; [0043] determine vehicle and external objects, weather, road conditions; [0042]-[0055] sensors; Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection)
determining, by the automated vehicle, a configuration of the traffic intersection; ([0004] autonomous vehicle behavior. Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection; see [0066]-[0070]);
determining, by the automated vehicle, a movement behavior of the objects; ([0004] autonomous vehicle behavior. Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection; see [0066]-[0070]);
determining, by the automated vehicle, a first driving strategy for the automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, depending on the configuration of the traffic intersection and depending on the movement behavior of the objects, wherein the first driving strategy includes a first time window and a first trajectory for the automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection; ([0004] autonomous vehicle behavior. Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection; [0066]-[0067] vehicle A, vehicle B, and vehicle C negotiate an intersection; B and C stop at intersection to allow A to pass through first; [0069]-[0070] vehicles A, B, and C negotiate an intersection; A has priority, but C cannot stop due to road conditions; C proceeds through intersection first, B stops, and A slows to allow C to pass before proceeding though intersection; [0092] V2X inter-vehicle negotiation accounts for timing and order to pass through an intersection between cars approaching the intersection);
determining, by the automated vehicle, a second driving strategy for another automated vehicle depending on the first time window, depending on the configuration of the traffic intersection, and depending on the movement behavior of the objects, ([0004] autonomous vehicle behavior. Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection; [0066]-[0067] vehicle A, vehicle B, and vehicle C negotiate an intersection; B and C stop at intersection to allow A to pass through first; [0069]-[0070] vehicles A, B, and C negotiate an intersection; A has priority, but C cannot stop due to road conditions; C proceeds through intersection first, B stops, and A slows to allow C to pass before proceeding though intersection; [0092] V2X inter-vehicle negotiation accounts for timing and order to pass through an intersection between cars approaching the intersection); [. . .]
controlling the automated vehicle along the first trajectory, depending on the first driving strategy; and ([0080] power and drive systems, transmission, engine, brake, actuator, throttle, steering controlled by processors, hardware, software; used to autonomously operate vehicle; Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0067] B and C stop at intersection to allow A to pass through first; [0069]-[0070] C proceeds through intersection first, B stops, and A slows to allow C to pass before proceeding though intersection); [. . .].
However, Vassilovski does not explicitly teach: wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, the second driving strategy further including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window; transmitting, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle.
Lacaze teaches: wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, ([0081] intersection controller compare anticipated path of first vehicle V1 and anticipated path of second vehicle V2 and compute location that anticipated path of V1 and anticipated path of V2 intersect. compute time at which each vehicle will be at intersection of anticipated paths of V1 and V2 and determine likelihood of collision between V1 and V2. [0082] cross-reference safety probability margin for each vehicle and add that safety probability margin to each probability curve of time at intersection of anticipated paths of V1 and V2. If probability curves of times that V1 and V2 will be at intersection of anticipated paths of V1 and V2 overlaps or is within predetermined safety probability margin, remedial measures taken. review intersection for any instruction restrictions that may affect any potential adjustment of speed or path for V1 or V2 and restrict that option. [0083] speed and path changes for V1 and V2 are analyzed by intersection controller and most efficient solution generated. signal sent to V1 to change its speed (speed up or slow down so V1 arrives at intersection at different time than previously computed to avoid collision), or change its path (change lanes or take another route so paths of V1 and V2 do not cross or V1 and V2 will arrive at updated anticipated intersection of paths of V1 and V2 at separated times))
the second driving strategy further including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window; (see [0081]-[0083])
transmitting, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle (see [0081]-[0083]. [0026] remote server may instead be performed locally by computing device. intersection controller may be operable to receive data from sensor and vehicle, utilize logic or info from remote server, to manage path, trajectory, speed of crossing corresponding intersection by vehicle and other vehicles approaching the intersection. Here, the computing may be performed locally by the vehicles (first vehicle)).
Vassilovski and Lacaze are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle collision avoidance controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Vassilovski with the aspects of Lacaze to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, control for an automated vehicle wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window, and transmitting, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle. The motivation for modification would have been to increase intersection safety, avoid collisions with other vehicles, and overall reduce the danger associated with complex traffic scenarios (Lacaze, [0064]).
Regarding claim 3: Vassilovski-Lacaze further teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration of the traffic intersection comprises an arrangement of lanes and/or applicable traffic rules in an area of the traffic intersection (Vassilovski: Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection; [0066]-[0067] vehicle A, vehicle B, and vehicle C negotiate an intersection; B and C stop at intersection to allow A to pass through first; [0069]-[0070] vehicles A, B, and C negotiate an intersection; A has priority, but C cannot stop due to road conditions; C proceeds through intersection first, B stops, and A slows to allow C to pass before proceeding though intersection; [0092] V2X inter-vehicle negotiation accounts for timing and order to pass through an intersection between cars approaching the intersection).
Regarding claim 4: Vassilovski-Lacaze further teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein the second driving strategy additionally includes the configuration of the traffic intersection (Vassilovski: Figs. 7A, 7B: vehicles, other vehicles/objects navigate a traffic intersection; [0066]-[0067] vehicle A, vehicle B, and vehicle C negotiate an intersection; B and C stop at intersection to allow A to pass through first; [0069]-[0070] vehicles A, B, and C negotiate an intersection; A has priority, but C cannot stop due to road conditions; C proceeds through intersection first, B stops, and A slows to allow C to pass before proceeding though intersection).
Regarding claim 5: Vassilovski teaches: A control device configured to operate an automated vehicle at a traffic intersection, the control device configured to: ([0037]; Figs. 7A, 7B):
detect, by the automated vehicle, surrounding area data values, wherein the surrounding area data values represent a surrounding area of the automated vehicle, which includes the traffic intersection and objects in the surrounding area; ([0004]. [0042]-[0055]; Figs. 7A, 7B);
determine, by the automated vehicle, a configuration of the traffic intersection; ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0070]);
determine, by the automated vehicle, a movement behavior of the objects; ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0070]);
determine, by the automated vehicle, a first driving strategy for the automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, depending on the configuration of the traffic intersection and depending on the movement behavior of the objects, wherein the first driving strategy includes a first time window and a first trajectory for the automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection; ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0067]; [0069]-[0070]; [0092]);
determine, by the automated vehicle, a second driving strategy for another automated vehicle depending on the first time window, depending on the configuration of the traffic intersection, and depending on the movement behavior of the objects, ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0067]; [0069]-[0070]; [0092]); [. . .]
control the automated vehicle along the first trajectory, depending on the first driving strategy; and ([0080]; Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0067]; [0069]-[0070]) [. . .].
However, Vassilovski does not explicitly teach: wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, the second driving strategy further including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window; transmit, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle.
Lacaze teaches: wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, ([0081]-[0083])
the second driving strategy further including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window; ([0081]-[0083])
transmit, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle ([0081]-[0083]. [0026]).
Vassilovski and Lacaze are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle collision avoidance controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Vassilovski with the aspects of Lacaze to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, control for an automated vehicle wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window, and transmitting, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle. The motivation for modification would have been to increase intersection safety, avoid collisions with other vehicles, and overall reduce the danger associated with complex traffic scenarios (Lacaze, [0064]).
Regarding claim 6: Vassilovski teaches: A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for operating an automated vehicle at a traffic intersection, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps: ([0037]; Figs. 7A, 7B; [0079]):
detecting, by the automated vehicle, surrounding area data values, wherein the surrounding area data values represent a surrounding area of the automated vehicle, which includes the traffic intersection and objects in the surrounding area; ([0004]. [0042]-[0055]; Figs. 7A, 7B)
determining, by the automated vehicle, a configuration of the traffic intersection; ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0070]);
determining, by the automated vehicle, a movement behavior of the objects; ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0070]);
determining, by the automated vehicle, a first driving strategy for the automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, depending on the configuration of the traffic intersection and depending on the movement behavior of the objects, wherein the first driving strategy includes a first time window and a first trajectory for the automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection; ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0067]; [0069]-[0070]; [0092]);
determining, by the automated vehicle, a second driving strategy for another automated vehicle depending on the first time window, depending on the configuration of the traffic intersection, and depending on the movement behavior of the objects, ([0004]. Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0067]; [0069]-[0070]; [0092]); [. . .]
controlling the automated vehicle along the first trajectory, depending on the first driving strategy; and ([0080]; Figs. 7A, 7B; [0066]-[0067]; [0069]-[0070]); [. . .].
However, Vassilovski does not explicitly teach: wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, the second driving strategy further including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window; transmitting, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle.
Lacaze teaches: wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, ([0081]-[0083])
the second driving strategy further including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window; ([0081]-[0083])
transmitting, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle ([0081]-[0083]. [0026]).
Vassilovski and Lacaze are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle collision avoidance controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Vassilovski with the aspects of Lacaze to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, control for an automated vehicle wherein the second driving strategy includes a second time window indicating a period of time that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection, including a second trajectory indicating a safe trajectory that will be suitable for the other automated vehicle for passing through the traffic intersection during the second time window, and transmitting, from the automated vehicle to the other automated vehicle, the second driving strategy for the other automated vehicle. The motivation for modification would have been to increase intersection safety, avoid collisions with other vehicles, and overall reduce the danger associated with complex traffic scenarios (Lacaze, [0064]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MADISON B EMMETT whose telephone number is (303)297-4231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 ET.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/MADISON B EMMETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights