DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 received on 04/29/2025 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
only comprise planned-ahead foreign trajectories of foreign vehicles should read only comprise planned-ahead foreign trajectories of the at least one foreign vehicle.
Claims 6-7, 12-13 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the reference trajectory and reference effort value should read the reference trajectory and a reference effort value.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: wherein wherein should read wherein . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding “means configured to carry out, implement, and/or actuate a method”, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of processor and equivalents thereof as supported by pg 11 paragraph 2 of the specification reproduced below:
a device comprises means which carry out, implement, and/or actuate the steps described in the preceding embodiments. The device can be an electrical device having at least one computing unit for processing signals or data, at least one storage unit for storing signals or data, and at least one interface and/or one communication interface for inputting or outputting data which are embedded in a communication protocol. The computing unit can be, for example, a signal processor, a so-called system ASIC, a microprocessor, or a microcontroller for processing sensory signals of the ego and/or foreign vehicles and outputting data signals as a function of the sensor signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tuple" in “forming tuples […] assessing the tuple using a tuple effort value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the tuple effort value is a single value for all tuples or unique to each tuple. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret assessing the tuple using a tuple effort value as determining a tuple effort value for each tuple, as supported by pg 16 2nd last paragraph of the specification reproduced below:
Based on the ego planned trajectories 101a and 101b and the received trajectory 111 and the generated trajectory 112, the vehicle 100 forms trajectory tuples, each of which comprises an ego trajectory and a foreign trajectory. In the present example, 4 tuples can therefore be generated, namely the tuple A: (101a 111), B: (101b 111), C: (101a 112), and D: (101b 112), as shown in the lower area of Figure 1. For each tuple, a tuple effort value is determined
Claims 2-20 are dependent on claim 1, and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 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
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method.
Claims 8-20 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
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 claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for cooperatively coordinating driving maneuvers of an ego vehicle with foreign maneuvers of at least one foreign vehicle, the method comprising:
generating a trajectory family, which comprises multiple planned-ahead ego trajectories for the ego vehicle, wherein the ego trajectories comprise a reference trajectory;
receiving one or more foreign data packets from the at least one foreign vehicle, wherein a foreign trajectory family, which comprises different planned-ahead foreign trajectories for the respective foreign vehicle, is contained in a foreign data packet;
generating additional foreign trajectories which correspond to further possible driving maneuvers of a foreign vehicle;
forming tuples made up in each case of an ego trajectory and a foreign trajectory or an initial foreign trajectory and assessing the tuple using a tuple effort value;
determining collision-free tuples, wherein those tuples are selected in which the ego trajectory and the foreign trajectory are collision-free within a collision horizon;
determining whether the ego vehicle has a right-of-way and, if the ego vehicle has the right-of-way:
selecting a trajectory from the tuple having the lowest tuple effort value as an egoistic trajectory from those collision-free tuples which comprise both planned-ahead foreign trajectories and additional foreign trajectories;
selecting a trajectory from the tuple having the lowest tuple effort value as an altruistic trajectory from all collision-free tuples which only comprise planned-ahead foreign trajectories of foreign vehicles;
determining a difference between a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the altruistic trajectory and a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the egoistic trajectory;
selecting a trajectory, wherein the egoistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is greater than a tuple effort limiting value or the altruistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is less than the tuple effort limiting value or is equal to the tuple effort limiting value; and
sending a data packet to the foreign vehicle, wherein depending on a result of the trajectory selection, the data packet comprises the egoistic trajectory or the altruistic trajectory as the reference trajectory,
wherein the tuple effort limiting value is increased with progressing cooperation duration.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The steps of “generating a trajectory family”, “generating additional foreign trajectories”, “forming tuples […] and assessing the tuple”, “determining collision-free tuples”, “determining whether the ego vehicle has a right-of-way”, “selecting a trajectory […]” and “determining a difference” are equivalent to a mental process of judgement based on observation. For example, a driver determines possible trajectories of own vehicle and other vehicle based on safe combinations of trajectories and determine which combination requires more effort and whether the driver determines the additional effort is acceptable, such as decelerating to yield to a vehicle entering the highway or accelerate to pass first.
The preamble language “cooperatively coordinating driving maneuvers of an ego vehicle with foreign maneuvers of at least one foreign vehicle” does not carry patentable weight because it corresponds to an intended use.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
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”):
1. A method for cooperatively coordinating driving maneuvers of an ego vehicle with foreign maneuvers of at least one foreign vehicle, the method comprising:
generating a trajectory family, which comprises multiple planned-ahead ego trajectories for the ego vehicle, wherein the ego trajectories comprise a reference trajectory;
receiving one or more foreign data packets from the at least one foreign vehicle, wherein a foreign trajectory family, which comprises different planned-ahead foreign trajectories for the respective foreign vehicle, is contained in a foreign data packet;
generating additional foreign trajectories which correspond to further possible driving maneuvers of a foreign vehicle;
forming tuples made up in each case of an ego trajectory and a foreign trajectory or an initial foreign trajectory and assessing the tuple using a tuple effort value;
determining collision-free tuples, wherein those tuples are selected in which the ego trajectory and the foreign trajectory are collision-free within a collision horizon;
determining whether the ego vehicle has a right-of-way and, if the ego vehicle has the right-of-way:
selecting a trajectory from the tuple having the lowest tuple effort value as an egoistic trajectory from those collision-free tuples which comprise both planned-ahead foreign trajectories and additional foreign trajectories;
selecting a trajectory from the tuple having the lowest tuple effort value as an altruistic trajectory from all collision-free tuples which only comprise planned-ahead foreign trajectories of foreign vehicles;
determining a difference between a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the altruistic trajectory and a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the egoistic trajectory;
selecting a trajectory, wherein the egoistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is greater than a tuple effort limiting value or the altruistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is less than the tuple effort limiting value or is equal to the tuple effort limiting value; and
sending a data packet to the foreign vehicle, wherein depending on a result of the trajectory selection, the data packet comprises the egoistic trajectory or the altruistic trajectory as the reference trajectory,
wherein the tuple effort limiting value is increased with progressing cooperation duration.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving one or more foreign data packets” and “sending a data packet to the foreign vehicle,” the examiner submits that these limitations are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, specifically transmission and receipt of data.
Regarding “computer” and “means configured to carry out” recited in claims 8 and 14, they are recited at a high level of generality and corresponds to the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Using a processing unit of a general-purpose computing device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Using a computer as a tool to perform the generating, determining and selecting steps of the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
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.
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 (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to perform steps of generating, determining and selecting amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving […]” and “sending […]”, the examiner submits that these limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
Therefore, claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner recommends adding an additional claim limitation of following the reference trajectory after sending a data packet […] as the reference trajectory in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for independent claim 1 as supported by para. [0012] and [0075] of the pre-grant publication of the instant application (US20250333083A1) reproduced below.
[0012] The trajectory which is selected from the trajectory family in order to be actually driven along by the vehicle, or the trajectory which the vehicle currently follows and is the set point for the driving controller/driver, can be designated as the reference trajectory
[0075] As long as the altruistic trajectory and not the egoistic trajectory is sent and followed, a cooperation exists between the vehicles 100, 110.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 14, closest prior arts, FUCHS (US20210146922A1) and KNAPP (EP3776514B1), taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
The Espacenet English translation of KNAPP cited by the Examiner is attached.
FUCHS teaches generating own vehicle trajectories and receiving trajectories from other vehicles to generate tuples (para. [0008]: “1) Rating a trajectory set of pre-planned trajectories for the vehicle with one effort value each using at least one rating criterion; 2) Receiving a fellow data packet from the fellow vehicle, wherein the fellow data packet contains a fellow trajectory set with different pre-planned fellow trajectories for the fellow vehicle and a fellow effort value for each fellow trajectory; 3) Combining one trajectory and one fellow trajectory each into tuples and combining the respective effort value with the respective fellow effort value into a tuple effort value of the tuple;”), selecting a tuple among collision-free tuples as reference trajectory (para. [0008]: “(4) Selecting collision-free tuples, wherein tuples are selected where the trajectory and the fellow trajectory are collision-free within a collision horizon; 5) Selecting the trajectory and the associated effort value of the collision-free tuple with the lowest tuple effort value as reference trajectory and reference effort value”) and sending the reference trajectory along with alternative trajectory (para. [0008]: “6) Classification of trajectories with a lower effort value than the reference effort value as demand trajectories and demand effort values; 7) Classification of trajectories with a higher effort value than the reference effort value as alternative trajectories and alternative effort values; and 8) Transmitting a data packet to the fellow vehicle, wherein the data packet contains a trajectory set of the reference trajectory and the associated reference effort value and at least one trajectory from a group comprising the demand trajectories and the alternative trajectories as well as the respective effort values”), wherein the trajectories comprise of egoistic and altruistic characteristics (para. [0096]: “The combination may be designed in such a way that either an egoistic or an altruistic basic behavior is represented, depending on the driver.”), but fails to specifically teach generating additional foreign trajectories which correspond to further possible driving maneuvers of a foreign vehicle, determining a difference between a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the altruistic trajectory and a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the egoistic trajectory; selecting a trajectory, wherein the egoistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is greater than a tuple effort limiting value or the altruistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is less than the tuple effort limiting value or is equal to the tuple effort limiting value; and wherein the tuple effort limiting value is increased with progressing cooperation duration.
KNAPP teaches determining a priority vehicle and a non-priority vehicle and exchange trajectories to determine whether collision exist (para. [0052]: “Step 130 includes a collision check which is carried out independently of one another in the maneuver planning devices of both motor vehicles 10, 20. For this purpose, the own driving trajectory is compared with the received driving trajectory of the other motor vehicle. If no collision between the compared trajectories has been detected, no coordination is necessary, so that the process is ended”) and the priority vehicle plans a cost-optimized trajectory only if its cost falls below a limit (para. [0057]: “As soon as it has been determined by the maneuver planning device of the pre-empted second motor vehicle 20 that the costs of the planned avoidance trajectory 22 fall below the individual cost limit value of the pre-empted second motor vehicle 20, the planned avoidance trajectory is adopted as an updated travel trajectory 21”) and goes the original trajectory otherwise (para. [0058]: “As soon as it is determined by the maneuver planning device of the pre-empted second motor vehicle 20 that the individual cost limit value of the pre-empted second motor vehicle 20 is not undershot, the planned avoidance trajectory 22 is discarded in step 180 and the second travel trajectory 21 is retained.”), but fails to specifically teach generating additional foreign trajectories which correspond to further possible driving maneuvers of a foreign vehicle, determining a difference between a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the altruistic trajectory and a tuple effort value of the tuple comprising the egoistic trajectory; selecting a trajectory, wherein the egoistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is greater than a tuple effort limiting value or the altruistic trajectory is selected if the absolute value of the determined difference is less than the tuple effort limiting value or is equal to the tuple effort limiting value; wherein the tuple effort limiting value is increased with progressing cooperation duration, and wherein the tuple effort limiting value is increased with progressing cooperation duration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yadmellat (US20220219726A1) teaches sorting the plurality of candidate trajectories to generate a sorted plurality of candidate trajectories, the sorted plurality of candidate trajectories being ordered based on the criterion satisfaction data and priority rank for each criterion.
WENG (US20230185311A1) teaches generating in addition or alternative to the second trajectory, a most economical third trajectory which is collision-free with planned trajectories of other vehicles but ignores desired trajectories of other vehicles, wherein a desired trajectory of another vehicle is accepted by a vehicle during trajectory planning when a cost difference between the first trajectory and the third trajectory is less than a predetermined maximum cost increase value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights