CTNF 19/033,795 CTNF 87084 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on January 22, 2025, which claims foreign priority to CN202411773383.6, filed on December 4, 2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (see certified copy received on March 10, 2025), and thus the effective filing date is December 4, 2024 . Status of the Claims 3. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent claims. This action is made non-final. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 4. Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . Step 1 : Claims 1-12 are directed to a method, Claims 13-19 are directed to a system, and Claim 20 is directed to a method. Therefore, Claims 1-20 meet the requirements to be considered a statutory category (See MPEP § 2106.03). Step 2A, prong one evaluation : The abstract ideas (specifically mental processes) in the rejected claims are as follows: determining multiple first actions based on the information when the host vehicle is at a distance to estimate a location of advantage-gaining actions ( Claim 1 , and similarly, Claims 13 and 20 ); determining a second action based on the input from the host vehicle operator ( Claim 1 , and similarly, Claims 13 and 20 ); wherein determining the first choice and the second choice includes determining multiple host vehicle maneuvering choices ( Claim 4 , and similarly, Claim 16 ); wherein determining multiple first actions includes determining a third choice ( Claim 5 ). The recited “determining” steps are mental processes that can easily be completed in the human mind. Nothing in the claims precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a person (i.e., a driver) observing a traffic situation and determining possible actions, such as stay in lane, pass on the right, and/or pass on the left, and determining further action based on the selected action (i.e., accelerating if passing, maintaining speed or slowing down if staying in the lane). Therefore, the above-noted claims recite abstract ideas. The additional elements, found in Claims 1-20, are grouped as follows: receiving information at least partially based on a host vehicle environment ( Claim 1 , and similarly, Claims 13 and 20 ); wherein the host vehicle environment includes at least one of surrounding traffic patterns or host vehicle turning options ( Claim 2 , and similarly, Claim 14 ); wherein the information includes at least one of V2X messages related to key impacting traffic participants, traffic light signals, traffic patterns, onboard perception data, host vehicle route planning, a host vehicle recent speed profile, or a host vehicle operator preference model ( Claim 3 , and similarly, Claim 15 ). presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator ( Claim 1 , and similarly, Claims 13 and 20 ); wherein presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator includes presenting a first choice that gains a higher advantage than the second choice and a second choice having a higher probability of success than the first choice ( Claim 6 , and similarly, Claim 17 ); wherein presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator includes presenting a preview stage having suggestions to the host vehicle operator including at least one of an estimated location, an action type, a feasible spatial and temporal range, an expected challenge, or dominant impacts per-lane ( Claim 7 ); wherein presenting includes refreshing re-determined first choice and second choice actions until an input is received from the host vehicle operator ( Claim 8 , and similarly, Claim 18 ); wherein presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator includes presenting a notification of the multiple first actions to a human-machine interface (HMI) ( Claim 9 ). receiving an input from the host vehicle operator based on the multiple first actions ( Claim 1 , and similarly, Claims 13 and 20 ); wherein receiving the input includes at least one of receiving an indication that the host vehicle operator at least one of dismissed all the multiple first actions, dismissed one of the multiple first actions, switched an order of the multiple first actions, or entered no input ( Claim 10 , and similarly, Claim 19 and 20 ). using learning-based optimization based on receiving the input from the host vehicle operator ( Claim 11 ). providing system assistance by driving the host vehicle based on the input from the host vehicle operator ( Claim 12 , and similarly, Claim 20 ). Step 2A, prong two evaluation : The additional elements (a)-(d), individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (e), reflected in Claims 12 and 20, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they require an explicit vehicle control based on the input from the operator in response to the determination steps 1 . Additional elements of groups (a)-(d) merely apply the abstract idea to a technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)); additional elements of groups (a)-(c) are insignificant extra-solution activities – specifically, elements of groups (a) and (c) are pre-solution activities of collecting/obtaining data, and elements of group (b) are post-solution activities of displaying or transmitting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Step 2B : The additional elements (a)-(d), individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or else they are insignificant extra solution activities in the form of data collection and analysis (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), listing numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group (holding that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 5. Claim s 1-5, 9-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Go by, DE 102017200436 A1, published on July 12, 2018 (note that the examiner is relying upon a machine translation (attached to this Office Action)) . With respect to independent Claim 1 , Goby teaches a method of presenting multiple choices to a host vehicle operator to maintain smooth driving during automated or driver assisted driving of a host vehicle, comprising: receiving information at least partially based on a host vehicle environment (see Fig. 1, pgs. 1 (§ Abstract), 2 (“Detecting situation data”), 6 (“the situation data can be detected in particular via one or more sensor devices of the motor vehicle,” and “the motor vehicle detected a driving situation of the motor vehicle related situation data…”)). determining multiple first actions based on the information when the host vehicle is at a distance to estimate a location of advantage-gaining actions, wherein the multiple first actions include at least a first choice and a second choice (see Fig. 1 (actions 7, 8, and 9), pg. 7 (“In this driving situation, the driver assistance system determines 2 three possible driving maneuvers…”)). presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator (see Fig. 2 (element 15, 16, and 17), pg. 5 (“The possible driving maneuvers can be issued audibly or visually to the driver. An optical output can be made by a display device”)). receiving an input from the host vehicle operator based on the multiple first actions (see pg. 2 (“operator input”), bottom of pg. 4 and top of page 5 (“After the selection of the selected driving maneuver”)). determining a second action based on the input from the host vehicle operator, wherein the second action includes at least one of providing no further system assistance to the host vehicle operator, providing the host vehicle operator with system assistance corresponding to the first choice, or providing the host vehicle operator with system assistance corresponding to the second choice (see pg. 1 (§ Abstract), “execution of one of the possible driving maneuvers … selected by operator input” – teaching that a corresponding maneuver (either explicitly selected or otherwise the preferred selection) is executed (i.e., providing system assistance)). With respect to dependent Claim 2 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the host vehicle environment includes at least one of surrounding traffic patterns or host vehicle turning options (see Fig. 1, pgs. 6-7). With respect to dependent Claim 3 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the information includes at least one of V2X messages related to key impacting traffic participants, traffic light signals, traffic patterns, onboard perception data, host vehicle route planning, a host vehicle recent speed profile, or a host vehicle operator preference model (see pg. 5, discussing providing processing parameters to other vehicles). With respect to dependent Claim 4 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches wherein determining the first choice and the second choice includes determining multiple host vehicle maneuvering choices (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also discussion of Claim 1, above). With respect to dependent Claim 5 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches wherein determining multiple first actions includes determining a third choice (see Figs. 1 and 2). With respect to dependent Claim 9 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches wherein presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator includes presenting a notification of the multiple first actions to a human-machine interface (HMI) (see Fig. 2, pg. 6 (“a display device of the motor vehicle can be used to output the possible driving maneuvers”)). With respect to dependent Claim 10 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches wherein receiving the input includes at least one of receiving an indication that the host vehicle operator at least one of dismissed all the multiple first actions, dismissed one of the multiple first actions, switched an order of the multiple first actions, or entered no input (see pgs. 3 (discussing that no input from the driver can be interpreted as input to select the preferred maneuver) and 7 (learning the driver’s preferences)). With respect to dependent Claim 11 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches using learning-based optimization based on receiving the input from the host vehicle operator (see pgs. 3 and 7, discussing learning driver’s preferences). With respect to dependent Claim 12 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and further teaches providing system assistance by driving the host vehicle based on the input from the host vehicle operator (see pgs. 1 (§ Abstract), 2, 7, discussing performing a selected maneuver). With respect to Claims 13-16 and 19 , these claims are directed to a system, comprising similar steps and/or features as recited in Claims 1-4 and 10, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, above. With respect to Claim 20 , this claim is directed to a method , comprising a combination of steps and/or features as recited in Claims 1, 10, and 12, and is thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 6-8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goby . With respect to dependent Claim 6 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and while Goby clearly teaches determining and emphasizing a preferred maneuver, and further teaches that such determination is based on driver’s preferences (see Fig. 2, pgs. 2 and 6), Goby does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator includes presenting a first choice that gains a higher advantage than the second choice and a second choice having a higher probability of success than the first choice.” However, a skilled artisan would understand that possible choices can be presented in a variety of manners, including different ordering, emphasis, etc. (see, for example, Fig. 2). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to present the possible driving maneuvers of Goby in various manners to reflect driver’s preferences. With respect to dependent Claim 7 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and while Goby does not appear to explicitly state “wherein presenting the multiple first actions to the host vehicle operator includes presenting a preview stage having suggestions to the host vehicle operator including at least one of an estimated location, an action type, a feasible spatial and temporal range, an expected challenge, or dominant impacts per-lane,” Goby clearly suggests that the possible driving maneuvers can be issued visually to the driver, including outputting the possible driving maneuvers in the form of an augmented reality display (see pg. 5 (bottom) – pg. 6 (top)). A skilled artisan would understand that various forms of presentation can be implemented in order to communicate the possible driving maneuvers to the driver, including textual description, icons, animations, augmented reality over current environment, etc., and such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to ensure that the driver clearly understands the possible driving maneuvers before making a selection. With respect to dependent Claim 8 , Goby teaches the method of claim 1 , as discussed above, and while Goby does not appear to explicitly illustrate “wherein presenting includes refreshing re-determined first choice and second choice actions until an input is received from the host vehicle operator,” a skilled artisan would understand that the time interval provided for selection of a maneuver (see pg. 7) can be set to any desired length (see pg. 3, stating “a corresponding time interval is determined for each of the possible driving maneuvers, wherein the selected driving maneuver is performed only when the operating input is within the time interval associated with the selected driving maneuver), and such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to ensure that the selected maneuver is performed according to the driver’s explicit selection. With respect to Claims 17 and 18 , these claims are directed to the system of claim 13, comprising similar steps and/or features as recited in Claims 6 and 8, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, above. A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Sobhany ( US 2022/0144194 A1 ), disclosing a selection and execution of one or more output actions relating to a modification of at least one feature of a vehicle in response to identified vehicle environment characteristics; Hettmann et al. ( EP 3441289 A1 ), disclosing a driver assistance device that detects the vehicle’s environment and identifies one or more possible driving maneuvers, and determining an intended maneuver based on behavioral information; etc . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 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. /DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 11 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 12 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 13 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/033,795 Page 14 Art Unit: 3658 1 It follows that Claims 12 and 20 are not rejected under § 101.
Prosecution Insights