DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Examiner has checked and verified that the subject matter of the instant application is supported through the earlier filed provisional application 63/486,732. As such, the instant application is granted the earlier filing date of 02/24/2023.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/16/2026. Claims 1-15, 17-18, and 21-23 are pending and examined below. Examiner notes that claims 19 and 20 have been canceled, and as such, the claim objections for those claims have been removed from the current action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caveney et al., US 20170330461 A1, herein referred to as Caveney.
Regarding claim 1,
Caveney discloses the following:
receiving, using a data processing system, departure and destination coordinates for each target of a plurality of targets, wherein the data processing system is distinct and separate from each target of the plurality of targets (Figs. 4, 6, 7, Paragraphs 0041, 0090, 0162-0169)
initial and desired states for each vehicle are determined based on the optimization problem through the use of a vehicle controller
other vehicles can be considered targets
states are represented as x,y coordinates
if a controller on a vehicle receives data concerning other vehicles (targets) then the controller is distinct and separate from the other vehicle’s controller
identifying, using the data processing system, obstacles between the departure and destination coordinates (Fig. 9 task 3, Paragraph 0063, Table 1)
neighboring vehicles may be identified for conflict free pathing
a conflict is defined as an intersection of neighboring vehicles or a collision
neighboring vehicles can be considered obstacles
calculating, using the data processing system, an initial trajectory from the departure coordinates to the destination coordinates for each target of the plurality of targets (Paragraphs 0069-0072)
initial assumed trajectories are determined for each vehicle
calculating, using the data processing system, an optimal trajectory for each target of the plurality of targets that meets one or more constraints and that is based on the initial trajectory, the one or more constraints including avoiding collisions with the remainder of the plurality of targets and with the identified obstacles (Paragraphs 0063, 0069-0072)
an optimal trajectory may be determined for each vehicle if there is a conflict present
this optimization is used when the conflict is a potential collision
collision can occur between the coordinated vehicles and/or the non-coordinating vehicles, see Figs. 4A-4F, specifically the cars designated as “-1” and “-2” which are non-cooperative vehicles
controlling, using the data processing system, each target of the plurality of targets along the optimal trajectory from the departure coordinates to the destination coordinates for each target of the plurality of targets, wherein, prior to any target of the plurality of targets moving, the optimal trajectory for each target of the plurality of targets is calculated and each target of the plurality of targets is controlled along the optimal trajectory from the departure coordinates to the destination coordinates (Figs. 4, 6-7, 9, Paragraphs 0041, 0063, 0069-0072, 0090, 0162-0169)
optimal path planning is performed for the future time horizon for each vehicle such that no conflicts (collisions) occur during that time horizon
optimization is performed before issuing ECU commands for control (see Fig. 9 process after task 4)
control commands can be transmitted from one vehicle to another
Regarding claim 2,
Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses the following:
calculating an initial trajectory includes: expressing, using the data processing system, a trajectory for each target of the plurality of targets by a polynomial (Paragraphs 0100-0107)
assumed trajectories may be used for numerical pathing optimization
the assumed trajectories are discretized based on breakpoints for the future horizon
polynomial splines are determined for each trajectory potion between each breakpoint, yielding a piece-wise polynomial for a given assumed path
expressing, using the data processing system, each of the expressed polynomial as one or more matrices (Paragraphs 0100-0102)
spline polynomial coefficients may be represented by a collocation matrix
operating, using the data processing system, on the one or more expressed matrices to calculate the initial trajectory for each target of the plurality of targets (Paragraph 0102, 0107)
the assumed trajectories and their associated polynomial coefficient matrices may be discretized and further computed on using eq. 12 which represents constraints and costs
determining constraints and costs for the assumed trajectories is needed for optimizing around those constraints and costs
Regarding claim 3,
Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses the following:
receiving departure and destination coordinates for each target of a plurality of targets includes receiving ground elevation information and GCS coordinates of a volume in which the initial and optimal trajectories will be contained within (Table 1 road geometry section)
trajectories for future horizon may be defined using GPS waypoints which indicate three lanes of upcoming road
GPS returns altitude, longitude, and latitude coordinates and the upcoming three lanes can be considered a volume as the road geometry may have altitude variations in addition to the longitude and latitude variations
Regarding claim 4,
Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses the following:
confirming, using the data processing system, that the optimal trajectories of plurality of targets will not collide with each other, wherein the confirming is performed after the optimal trajectory is calculated but before each target of the plurality of targets is controlled (Paragraph 0037)
optimized trajectories may be transmitted between vehicles
this can be considered a final confirmation after the optimization but before the control is initiated
Regarding claim 6, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1. Caveney additionally discloses a processor (Paragraph 0032; controllers can include a processor), and a memory (Paragraph 0032; controllers can include memory).
Regarding claims 7-9, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 2-5, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 2-5.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-14, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 2-5, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 2-5.
Regarding claim 17,
Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses the following:
calculating an optimal trajectory includes calculating an optimal order of a polynomial for the optimal trajectories of the plurality of targets (Paragraph 0101)
optimization of the trajectories is performed through discretization and numerical solving
the polynomials representing the trajectories between breakpoints may have a given order k
for the optimization, the order k is set to 6
this can be considered a calculation of the optimal order of the polynomial as a k value of 6 results in a given smoothness factor of the polynomial which satisfies smoothness conditions
Regarding claim 21,
Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses the following:
the departure coordinates represent a starting location and the destination coordinates represent a final location for each target of the plurality of targets (Figs. 4, 6, 7, Paragraphs 0041, 0090, 0162-0169)
initial and desired states represent starting and final locations for each target
Regarding claim 22,
Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses the following:
the initial and optimal trajectories calculated by the data processing system are complete trajectories from a departure point representing a starting location and a destination point representing a final location (Paragraphs 0063, 0069-0072)
initial and optimal trajectories may be determined for each vehicle if there is a conflict present
the optimal trajectory has a starting location and a final location
examiner notes that any trajectory between two points can be considered a ‘complete trajectory’ as the trajectory fully connects between two points
Regarding claim 23,
Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses the following:
the initial and optimal trajectories calculated by the data processing system are not partial trajectories (Paragraphs 0063, 0069-0072)
both the initial and optimal trajectories that are determined can be considered ‘complete trajectories’ as they connect between a starting location and a final location
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Caveney and in view of Zhao et al., US 20170154529 A1, herein referred to as Zhao.
Regarding claim 5, Caveney discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Caveney further discloses calculating the optimal trajectory generates local coordinates (Paragraph 0081; trajectories may be defined using position, speed, and acceleration in the x and y directions, these can be considered local coordinates), and converting, using the data processing system, the local coordinates to standard coordinates (Paragraph 0081 and 0107; trajectories may have their local coordinates converted (mapped) to x, y positions, x, y, yaw angle and velocity, and yaw rate and acceleration, these can be considered standard coordinates since they represent a standard metric for a trajectory), but fails to disclose converting, using the data processing system, the local coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. However, Zhao, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches converting, using the data processing system, the local coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (at least Paragraph 0075; input coordinates may be converted to UTM). Therefore, from the teaching of Zhao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the vehicle system of Caveney to include converting, using the data processing system, the local coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates, as taught/suggested by Zhao. The motivation to do so would be to utilize a well-known coordinate system to operate the vehicle. This can allow for better adaptability in various regions of the world.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 5 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 5 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The examiner has conducted a thorough search and has not found any prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that teaches the claim limitations. The closest piece of prior art, US 20170330461 A1 by Caveney, discloses calculating an optimal trajectory includes calculating an optimal order of a polynomial for the optimal trajectories of the plurality of targets, but fails to disclose performing a plurality of calculation trials, wherein, in each trial, a potential trajectory is calculated using different potential values for one or more trajectory parameters; and comparing 2*n combinations of the potential values of the one or more trajectory parameters for each trial of the plurality of trials with an order of a polynomial, wherein n is the order of the polynomial. This feature is novel because it allows the system to fully explore optimization of a trajectory based on how complex it is. For instance, a 5th order trajectory polynomial would require comparing 10 potential candidate trajectory parameters (polynomial coefficients) during a calculation trial. This allows a full exploration of trajectory possibilities and would allow the system to choose the most optimal trajectory polynomial.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that the prior art does not disclose ‘complete trajectories’ and that the limitations are not being interpreted correctly under BRI. However, those skilled in the art would know that any trajectory has an initial position and a final position and that in the context of the claim language, the trajectory is generically stated as being between two points. Additionally, Applicant is arguing that a ‘partial trajectory’ as defined by the spec is one that is not an entire trip. However, the claim language only describes trajectories from an initial location to a final location which under BRI can be considered ‘complete trajectories’. Examiner also notes that even if one were to interpret the trajectories in a narrower manner consistent with Applicant’s arguments, the prior art still discloses a ‘complete trajectory’ from an initial location (merging lane) to finial location (highway lane) (see at least Fig. 6), as both locations represent different parts of an environment and the trajectory describes movement between the two.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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 at (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658