DETAILED ACTION
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 12/18/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to Arguments
4. Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 9 and 14 do not overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action. The “communication the message…” limitation states that operation of a communication device is being used to broadcast a message to a target area and does not require a return communication from the nearby vehicle. The limitation regarding “causing a nearby vehicle to adapt control” is the broadcasted message being used as an external mechanism for influencing the vehicles behavior. But it does not state what is being controlled. The amendments do not positively recite an action that a nearby autonomous vehicle is adapting. The limitations concern is how the result is communicated to and acted upon by another vehicle, rather than determination of the vehicle-control solution itself. Therefore, the 101 is not withdrawn.
5. Regarding 103(a) rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that limitations in Claim 1, 9 and 14 nowhere teaches or suggests “an ego vehicle predicting its own path from route data and broadcasting a directional alert about its own upcoming maneuver.” Respectfully, Examiner disagrees. The claim limitation does not suggest an upcoming maneuver for an ego vehicle nor does it suggest that it is broadcasting an upcoming maneuver. The claim recites “predict a path of the vehicle according to the data” and “responsive to determining the path satisfies an action threshold, generate a message about the path”. The limitation does not disclose what the message being generated consists of, just that it is about the path. It could generate a message about a path to avoid or a path to follow. Fig. 1 of Lee shows a flow chart in predicting the traveling path of the abnormal vehicle, computing collision risk value for every route considered as to assess a safe route to avoid the abnormal vehicle according to the collision risk value, and then recommends a route to nearby vehicles based on this computation. The safe route to avoid the anormal vehicle is also considering predicting the traveling route for the abnormal vehicle as shown in [0031-0033]. Nearby vehicles are being recommended routes in order to avoid the path of the abnormal vehicle based on a collision risk value. Examiner does however agree that Lee and Bielby do not disclose a one-way broadcast communication, however, Examiner brings forth reference Mawbey in which does disclose this amendment. Therefore, this indicates that Lee in view of Bielby in further view of Mawbey does teach the capability of the amended claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system.
Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim 20 is directed a method (i.e., a process).
Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
An action system, comprising:
one or more processors;
and a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors and storing:
a control module including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire data about a route and a current location of a vehicle;
predict a path of the vehicle according to the data; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally predict a path of the vehicle according to data. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
responsive to determining the path satisfies an action threshold, generate a message about the path;
determine a target area associated with the path including identifying a region proximate to the vehicle that would be affected by the path without knowledge of a presence of at least one nearby vehicle in the target area; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a target area associated with the path. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
and communicate the message to the target area by controlling a transceiver to focus transmission of the message in the target area as a one-way broadcast to cause the at least one nearby vehicle to adapt control.
Claim 9 recites,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire data about a route and a current location of a vehicle;
predict a path of the vehicle according to the data; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally predict a path of the vehicle according to data. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
responsive to determining the path satisfies an action threshold, generate a message about the path;
determine a target area associated with the path including identifying a region proximate to the vehicle that would be affected by the path without knowledge of a presence of at least one nearby vehicle in the target area; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a target area associated with the path. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
and communicate the message to the target area by controlling a transceiver to focus transmission of the message in the target area as a one-way broadcast to cause the at least one nearby vehicle to adapt control.
Claim 20 recites,
A method, comprising:
acquiring data about a route and a current location of a vehicle;
predicting a path of the vehicle according to the data; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally predict a path of the vehicle according to data. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
responsive to determining the path satisfies an action threshold, generating a message about the path;
determine a target area associated with the path including identifying a region proximate to the vehicle that would be affected by the path without knowledge of a presence of at least one nearby vehicle in the target area; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a target area associated with the path. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
and communicate the message to the target area by controlling a transceiver to focus transmission of the message in the target area as a one-way broadcast to cause the at least one nearby vehicle to adapt control.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites,
An action system, comprising:
one or more processors;
and a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors and storing:
a control module including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire data about a route and a current location of a vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
predict a path of the vehicle according to the data;
determine a target area associated with the path including identifying a region proximate to the vehicle that would be affected by the path without knowledge of a presence of at least one nearby vehicle in the target area;
and communicate the message to the target area by controlling a transceiver to focus transmission of the message in the target area as a one-way broadcast to cause the at least one nearby vehicle to adapt control. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This limitation is generally vied as extra solution activity because it adds a distinct communication operation that is not merely part of determining or generating the vehicle-control response. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not positively recite a control step of the vehicle. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Claim 9 recites,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: acquire data about a route and a current location of a vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
predict a path of the vehicle according to the data;
responsive to determining the path satisfies an action threshold, generate a message about the path; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not showcase a controlling step or entitle that the vehicle is going to be moving to the selected location. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
determine a target area associated with the path including identifying a region proximate to the vehicle that would be affected by the path without knowledge of a presence of at least one nearby vehicle in the target area;
and communicate the message to the target area by controlling a transceiver to focus transmission of the message in the target area as a one-way broadcast to cause the at least one nearby vehicle to adapt control. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This limitation is generally vied as extra solution activity because it adds a distinct communication operation that is not merely part of determining or generating the vehicle-control response. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not positively recite a control step of the vehicle. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Claim 20 recites,
A method, comprising:
acquiring data about a route and a current location of a vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
predicting a path of the vehicle according to the data;
responsive to determining the path satisfies an action threshold, generating a message about the path; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not showcase a controlling step or entitle that the vehicle is going to be moving to the selected location. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
determine a target area associated with the path including identifying a region proximate to the vehicle that would be affected by the path without knowledge of a presence of at least one nearby vehicle in the target area;
and communicate the message to the target area by controlling a transceiver to focus transmission of the message in the target area as a one-way broadcast to cause the at least one nearby vehicle to adapt control. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This limitation is generally vied as extra solution activity because it adds a distinct communication operation that is not merely part of determining or generating the vehicle-control response. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not positively recite a control step of the vehicle. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) do not recite further limitations that cause claim’s 1, 15 and 20 to be patent eligible. Showcasing a controlling element for the vehicle is utilizing the transmitted information and would overcome the 101 rejections for Claims 1, 9 and 14.
Claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 non-obviousness.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170162049) in view of Bielby (US 20230351893) in view of Mawbey (US 20150116133).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses An action system, comprising: (Lee, see at least Abstract, a system)
acquire data about a route and a current location of a vehicle; (Lee, see at least [0007-0009] wherein data relating to the vehicle information includes collision, event time, vehicle location, vehicle direction, and uses this information to compute a collision risk value for every recommended route based on if the recommended route enters a route potential pattern.)
predict a path of the vehicle according to the data; (Lee, see at least [0016] wherein the avoidance system predicts the traveling route of the vehicle according to its historical data, and provides a recommended route)
responsive to determining the path satisfies an action threshold, generate a message about the path; (Lee, see at least [0032] wherein the avoidance system acquires the route with lowest collision risk value from the multiple recommended routes which have their corresponding collision risk values. This route with the lowest collision risk value is set as the best recommended route in the system.)
determine a target area associated with the path including identifying a region proximate to the vehicle that would be affected by the path without knowledge of a presence of at least one nearby vehicle in the target area; (Lee, see at least [0029] wherein the avoidance system predicts the traveling route for the abnormal vehicle according to historical data. The system provides a recommended route for the abnormal vehicle based on a risk assessment. Also see Fig. 6 in which showcases determining a target area for a path of the abnormal vehicle, wherein [0066-0068] shows probability values (labeled as 1-5) in which the larger the number, the higher the probability of the traveling route passing over the grid is. ** target area is interpreted as the probability values (labeled 1-5) going along a predicted path. **** Examiner notes that the target area associated with the path is being done without knowledge of a presence of another vehicle nearby, but the predicted potential route is being based on historical data.)
Lee does not explicitly disclose one or more processors; and a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors and storing: a control module including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
However, Bielby discloses one or more processors; and a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors and storing: (Bielby, see at least [0035] and Fig. 4 in which shows processor 230 and memory 240)
a control module including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Bielby, see at least [0012] “the method may be implemented according to instructions stored on a non-transitory machine readable medium that, when executed on a computing device, cause the computing device to perform the method.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Lee with the teachings of Bielby to include the capability of using processors and a control module to execute instructions, wherein the control module can control sensors of the vehicle to generate observations of the environment, use collected data to predict and path and allow for nearby vehicles to be issued warnings when a vehicle ahead may conduct a maneuver for a situation that might not be seen. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle to ensure drivers are not caught off guard when a vehicle nearby may act in an unexpected manner to avoid a dangerous circumstance.
and communicate the message to the target area by controlling a transceiver to focus transmission of the message in the target area as a one-way broadcast to cause the at least one nearby vehicle to adapt control. (Mawbey, see at least [0031-0032] wherein the communication module can be a one-way system. ** Lee also discloses communicating an available route to nearby moving vehicles to effectively avoid the abnormal vehicle, however, does not explicitly disclose communicating the message using a one-way broadcast. Mawbey discloses a one-way broadcast system for communication.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Lee with the teachings of Mawbey to include the capability of enhancing transmission of communications from the vehicle to issue communications to any vehicles that may be nearby when a vehicle ahead may conduct a maneuver for a situation that might not be seen. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle to ensure drivers are not caught off guard when a vehicle nearby may act in an unexpected manner to avoid a dangerous circumstance.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The action system of claim 1, wherein the control module includes instructions to (see rejections above)
Bielby further discloses acquire the data including instructions to determine a current route of the vehicle and a current location of the vehicle that specifies a lane of a road on which the vehicle is traveling, and wherein the data includes one or more of GPS data, LiDAR data, radar data, ultrasonic data, map data, and camera image data. (Bielby, see at least [0037] wherein sensors may be used to collect information regarding the roadway on which the vehicle is operated, such as road lane dividers. Sensors configured to collect information regarding surrounding environment includes cameras, GPS, etc)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Lee with the teachings of Bielby to include the capability of using processors and a control module to execute instructions wherein the control module can control sensors of the vehicle to generate observations of the environment, use collected data to predict and path and allow for nearby vehicles to be issued warnings when a vehicle ahead may conduct a maneuver for a situation that might not be seen. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle to ensure drivers are not caught off guard when a vehicle nearby may act in an unexpected manner to avoid a dangerous circumstance.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The action system of claim 2, wherein the control module includes instructions to determine the route including instructions to perform one of: (see rejections above)
inferring the route according to learned behaviors of a driver of the vehicle, or identifying an explicit destination and route plan that the driver is following, and wherein the control module includes instructions to infer the route including instructions to identify patterns of the driver according to prior routes driven by the driver. (Lee, see at least [0049] wherein historical data is used for predicting the traveling route of the abnormal vehicle, records are in a database of driving records and any situation relating to abnormal events. Records indicate data relating to speed, acceleration, steering and more. The accumulating data is used to predict the traveling route of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The action system of claim 1, wherein the control module includes instructions to predict the path including instructions to (see rejection above)
determine a future maneuver of the vehicle that is associated with the route of the vehicle, wherein the future maneuver being a nominal maneuver or an unexpected maneuver, (Lee, see at least [0033-0036] wherein the avoidance system predicts the traveling route for the abnormal vehicle based on the abnormal signal. The avoidance system then determines the best recommended route for avoiding the abnormal vehicle according to the collision risk value for every available route.)
and wherein the message i) identifies the vehicle by indicating one or more features of an appearance of the vehicle, a location of the vehicle, and a license plate number and ii) the future maneuver. (Lee, see at least [0076] wherein vehicle 300 may provide potential options for avoiding a collision to nearby vehicles and also include operational aspects of vehicle 300 and environmental information and any relevant information from sensors 320. ** see [0061] wherein sensors 320 are used to determine relative location of hazard to the location of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The action system of claim 4, wherein the control module includes instructions to determine the path satisfies the action threshold including instructions to (see rejections above)
determine whether the potential future maneuver involves at least one of: a sudden input to control the vehicle to correct the vehicle being out of position for the route, an abrupt alteration of speed, and an abrupt turn of the vehicle. (Lee, see at least [0031-0035] wherein the avoidance system is using vehicle information from the abnormal vehicle such as operating statuses of gas pedal, brake, steering wheel to predict traveling routes for the nearby vehicle)
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The action system of claim 4, wherein the control module includes instructions to (see rejections above)
determine the path satisfies the action threshold including instructions to determine that the future maneuver is likely to influence operation of at least one nearby vehicle. (Lee, see at least [0033-0036] wherein the avoidance system predicts the traveling route for the abnormal vehicle based on the abnormal signal. The avoidance system then determines the best recommended route for avoiding the abnormal vehicle according to the collision risk value for every available route.)
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The action system of claim 1, (see rejections above)
Mawbey further discloses wherein the communicating the message includes transmitting the message as a one-way transmission without a pre-established connection. (Mawbey, see at least [0031-0032] wherein the communication module can be a one way system.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Lee with the teachings of Mawbey to include the capability of enhancing transmission of communications from the vehicle to issue communications to any vehicles that may be nearby when a vehicle ahead may conduct a maneuver for a situation that might not be seen. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle to ensure drivers are not caught off guard when a vehicle nearby may act in an unexpected manner to avoid a dangerous circumstance.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The action system of claim 1, wherein the control module includes instructions to (see rejections above)
Mawbey further discloses communicate the message to the target area by controlling the transceiver to adjust a transmission power of the transceiver according to the target area. (Mawbey, see at least [0031-0032] wherein the communication module can be a one way system. The communication module is associated with an antenna that enhances transmission. Also see [0034] wherein the module 200 can amplify the range of notification to surrounding vehicles and expand coverage.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Lee with the teachings of Mawbey to include the capability of enhancing transmission of communications from the vehicle to issue communications to any vehicles that may be nearby when a vehicle ahead may conduct a maneuver for a situation that might not be seen. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle to ensure drivers are not caught off guard when a vehicle nearby may act in an unexpected manner to avoid a dangerous circumstance.
As per claim 9, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium that recites similar limitations performed by the action system of claim 1. The cited portions of Lee and Bielby and Mawbey used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 9. Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which is disclosed in Bielby [0012]. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, (see rejection above)
Bielby further discloses wherein the instructions to acquire the data including instructions to determine a current route of the vehicle and a current location of the vehicle that specifies a lane of a road on which the vehicle is traveling, and wherein the data includes one or more of GPS data, and image data. (Bielby, see at least [0037] wherein sensors may be used to collect information regarding the roadway on which the vehicle is operated, such as road lane dividers. Sensors configured to collect information regarding surrounding environment includes cameras, GPS, etc)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Lee with the teachings of Bielby to include the capability of using processors and a control module to execute instructions wherein the control module can control sensors of the vehicle to generate observations of the environment, use collected data to predict and path and allow for nearby vehicles to be issued warnings when a vehicle ahead may conduct a maneuver for a situation that might not be seen. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle to ensure drivers are not caught off guard when a vehicle nearby may act in an unexpected manner to avoid a dangerous circumstance.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions to predict the path including instructions to (see rejection above)
determine a future maneuver of the vehicle that is associated with the route of the vehicle, wherein the future maneuver being a nominal maneuver or an unexpected maneuver, (Lee, see at least [0033-0036] wherein the avoidance system predicts the traveling route for the abnormal vehicle based on the abnormal signal. The avoidance system then determines the best recommended route for avoiding the abnormal vehicle according to the collision risk value for every available route.)
and wherein the message i) identifies the vehicle by indicating one or more features of an appearance of the vehicle, a location of the vehicle, and a license plate number and ii) the future maneuver. (Lee, see at least [0076] wherein vehicle 300 may provide potential options for avoiding a collision to nearby vehicles and also include operational aspects of vehicle 300 and environmental information and any relevant information from sensors 320. ** see [0061] wherein sensors 320 are used to determine relative location of hazard to the location of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions to determine the path satisfies the action threshold include instructions to (see rejection above)
determine whether the potential future maneuver involves at least one of: a sudden input to control the vehicle to correct the vehicle being out of position for the route, an abrupt alteration of speed, and an abrupt turn of the vehicle. (Lee, see at least [0031-0035] wherein the avoidance system is using vehicle information from the abnormal vehicle such as operating statuses of gas pedal, brake, steering wheel to predict traveling routes for the nearby vehicle)
As per claim 13, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium that recites similar limitations performed by the action system of claim 7. The cited portions of Lee and Bielby and Mawbey used in the rejection of claim 7 teach the same system limitations of claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 7 as outlined above.
As per claim 14, the claim is directed towards a method that recites similar limitations performed by the action system of claim 1. The cited portions of Lee and Bielby and Mawbey used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses The method of claim 14, (see rejection above)
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein acquiring the data includes determining a current route of the vehicle and a current location of the vehicle that specifies a lane of a road on which the vehicle is traveling, and wherein the data includes one or more of GPS data, and image data.
However, Bielby discloses wherein acquiring the data includes determining a current route of the vehicle and a current location of the vehicle that specifies a lane of a road on which the vehicle is traveling, and wherein the data includes one or more of GPS data, and image data. (Bielby, see at least [0037] wherein sensors may be used to collect information regarding the roadway on which the vehicle is operated, such as road lane dividers. Sensors configured to collect information regarding surrounding environment includes cameras, GPS, etc)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Lee with the teachings of Bielby to include the capability of using processors and a control module to execute instructions wherein the control module can control sensors of the vehicle to generate observations of the environment, use collected data to predict and path and allow for nearby vehicles to be issued warnings when a vehicle ahead may conduct a maneuver for a situation that might not be seen. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle to ensure drivers are not caught off guard when a vehicle nearby may act in an unexpected manner to avoid a dangerous circumstance.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of Bielby discloses The method of claim 15, wherein determining the route includes one of: (see rejection above)
inferring the route according to learned behaviors of a driver of the vehicle, or identifying an explicit destination and route plan that the driver is following, and wherein inferring the route includes identifying patterns of the driver according to prior routes driven by the driver. (Lee, see at least [0049] wherein historical data is used for predicting the traveling route of the abnormal vehicle, records are in a database of driving records and any situation relating to abnormal events. Records indicate data relating to speed, acceleration, steering and more. The accumulating data is used to predict the traveling route of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses The method of claim 14, wherein predicting the path includes (see rejection above)
determining a future maneuver of the vehicle that is associated with the route of the vehicle, wherein the future maneuver being a nominal maneuver or an unexpected maneuver, (Lee, see at least [0033-0036] wherein the avoidance system predicts the traveling route for the abnormal vehicle based on the abnormal signal. The avoidance system then determines the best recommended route for avoiding the abnormal vehicle according to the collision risk value for every available route.)
and wherein the message i) identifies the vehicle by indicating one or more features of an appearance of the vehicle, a location of the vehicle, and a license plate number and ii) the future maneuver. (Lee, see at least [0076] wherein vehicle 300 may provide potential options for avoiding a collision to nearby vehicles and also include operational aspects of vehicle 300 and environmental information and any relevant information from sensors 320. ** see [0061] wherein sensors 320 are used to determine relative location of hazard to the location of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses The method of claim 17, (see rejection above)
wherein determining the path satisfies the action threshold includes determining whether the future maneuver involves at least one of: a sudden input to control the vehicle to correct the vehicle being out of position for the route, an abrupt alteration of speed, and an abrupt turn of the vehicle, (Lee, see at least [0031-0035] wherein the avoidance system is using vehicle information from the abnormal vehicle such as operating statuses of gas pedal, brake, steering wheel to predict traveling routes for the nearby vehicle)
and wherein determining the path satisfies the action threshold includes determining that the future maneuver is likely to influence operation of at least one nearby vehicle. (Lee, see at least [0033-0036] wherein the avoidance system predicts the traveling route for the abnormal vehicle based on the abnormal signal. The avoidance system then determines the best recommended route for avoiding the abnormal vehicle according to the collision risk value for every available route.)
As per claim 19, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium that recites similar limitations performed by the action system of claim 7. The cited portions of Lee and Bielby and Mawbey used in the rejection of claim 7 teach the same system limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 7 as outlined above.
As per claim 20, the claim is directed towards a method that recites similar limitations performed by the action system of claim 8. The cited portions of Lee and Bielby and Mawbey used in the rejection of claim 8 teach the same system limitations of claim 20. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which is disclosed in Bielby [0012]. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 8 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220306112 A1 – Systems, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to improving vehicle behavior planning to avoid undertaking maneuvers. In one embodiment, a method includes generating a driving context from sensor data about a surrounding environment of an ego vehicle. The driving context identifying lanes of a roadway and a position of the ego vehicle in the lanes. The method includes, in response to determining that the driving context and a state of a nearby vehicle satisfy a merge threshold, generating a trajectory for the ego vehicle that avoids undertaking the nearby vehicle. The method includes controlling the ego vehicle according to the trajectory.
US 20220348224 – A system comprises a lead autonomous vehicle (AV), a control device associated with the lead AV, and a following AV. The control device receives a command to navigate the lead AV to avoid an unexpected road condition. The control device receives sensor data from a sensor of the lead AV, comprising location coordinates of objects ahead of the lead AV. The control device accesses environmental data associated with a portion of a road between the lead AV and following AV. The environmental data comprises location coordinates of objects between the lead AV and following AV. The control device determines whether an object in the sensor data or environmental data impedes performing the command by the following AV. The control device updates the command, if the control device determines that an object impedes performing the command by the following AV, and communicates the updated command to the following AV.
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 NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights