DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Responsive to the Amendment filed July 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues with substance:
Argument: Johnson does not disclose receiving information identifying a second vehicle as driving erratically. In particular, Johnson neither identifies a specific vehicle nor classifies that vehicle's behavior as erratic, instead relying on generic proximity-based hazard detection. Johnson does not disclose "receiving, by one or more processors of a first vehicle, information identifying a second vehicle that is driving erratically,".
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not define or otherwise explain the scope of the term “erratically”. The terms “erratic” or “erratically” can be understood in the art as abnormal or irregular among many other definitions. Johnson et al teach detecting traffic behavior that includes receiving information regarding another vehicle that is driving abnormally such as lane splitting, cutting into the vehicle’s lane, or driving hazardously (see at least paragraphs [0006-0009, 0036, 0069]). This teaching in Johnson et al meets the scope of the claimed limitations.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al (US 2015/0166062).
As per claim 1, Johnson et al teach a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a first vehicle, information identifying a second vehicle that is driving erratically (see at least paragraphs [0004-0009, 0036]; vision/imaging system processes information from cameras/image data to identify objects such as other vehicles);
controlling, by the one or more processors, the first vehicle to initiate a maneuver to respond to the second vehicle according to one or more first instructions (see at least paragraphs [0006-0007, 0037-0041]; controlling the vehicle when another vehicle according to the cameras/image data);
predicting, by the one or more processors based at least in part on prediction information provided by one or more locally stored behavior models, whether the maneuver can be safely completed; and when the predicting indicates that the maneuver can be safely completed, controlling, by the one or more processors, the first vehicle to complete the maneuver according to one or more second instructions (see at least paragraphs [0030, 0035-0038, 0054, 0069-0075]; path planning based on image and object data being used to make the safest driving decisions).
As per claim 2, Johnson et al teach wherein the erratic driving includes swerving in a lane (see at least paragraphs [0034, 0037, 0069]).
As per claim 3, Johnson et al teach wherein the erratic driving includes driving partially on a shoulder (see at least paragraph [0040]).
As per claim 4, Johnson et al teach planning, by the one or more processors, to perform the maneuver; and dividing, by the one or more processors, the maneuver into a first portion and a second portion, wherein the one or more first instructions correspond to the first portion of the maneuver and the one or more second instructions correspond to the second portion of the maneuver (see at least fig 2).
As per claim 5, Johnson et al teach wherein when the predicting indicates that the maneuver cannot be safely completed, the maneuver is not completed by the first vehicle in order to avoid causing a collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0030, 0035-0038, 0054, 0069-0075]).
As per claim 6, Johnson et al teach indicating, by the first vehicle to the second vehicle or a driver of the second vehicle, an intent by the first vehicle to complete the maneuver (see at least paragraphs [0043, 0045]).
As per claim 7, Johnson et al teach wherein the predicting comprises predicting how the second vehicle would respond if the first vehicle makes a turn in front of the second vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0028]).
As per claim 8, Johnson et al teach wherein the predicting further comprises: predicting, by the one or more processors, that the second vehicle will take a responsive action (see at least paragraph [0028]).
As per claim 9, Johnson et al teach determining whether the second vehicle is taking the responsive action in response to the first vehicle completing the maneuver (see at least paragraphs [0028, 0031]).
As per claim 10, Johnson et al teach wherein the first vehicle does not complete the maneuver when the second vehicle does not take the responsive action (see at least paragraph [0041]).
As per claim 11, Johnson et al teach wherein the responsive action includes slowing down the second vehicle to a particular speed (see at least paragraphs [0046, 0071-0074]).
As per claim 12, Johnson et al teach wherein the responsive action includes changing a current lane of the second vehicle (see at least fig 2).
Claims 13-20 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
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 Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights