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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment June 30, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 4, 8, and 15 have been amended and claim 2 is canceled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of copending Application No. 17/477,377 in view of art of record in the previously provided notices of references cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the limitations:
wherein the data that is collected comprises personalization parameters including a type of the user, and wherein the type of the user comprises one or more of the user being female, male, young, old, short, and tall (e.g., claim 4);
recording audio or video of a surrounding environment before the user drives the vehicle (e.g., claim 5); each recite NEW MATTER.
With regard to limitation 1), ¶74 of the specification states “In some implementations, the system may adjust the height and force adjustment of the brake pedal based on the data collected on the user. For example, the brake pedal height may initially relatively higher than gas pedal in order to reduce the risk of the user inadvertently stepping on the gas before stepping on the break. In various implementations, the system may adjust the height and force adjustment of the brake pedal to the user. As such, the system accommodates different types of users (e.g., female, male, young, old, short, tall, etc.) during the simulated driving experience.” While ¶74 mentions types of users as female, male, young, old, short, and tall, the specification is silent with regard to collecting data comprising personalization parameters including a type of the user, and wherein the type of the user comprises one or more of the user being female, male, young, old, short, and tall. All that is mentioned in ¶74 is that different types of users may be accommodated and not collecting personalization parameters which include a type of user.
With regard to limitation 2), ¶65 of the specification provides, “In various implementations, the system may utilize multiple cameras and microphones mounted to the exterior of the vehicle to record video and audio. The system may record vehicle parameters (e.g., accelerator pedal motion and positions, brake pedal motion and positions, steering wheel motion and positions, active suspension parameters such as positions of each wheel, chassis angle, audio recordings, video recordings, vehicle position including global positioning system data, etc.). The particular trip parameters may vary, depending on the particular implementation. For example, the system may record actual audio and/or video of the surrounding environment before the simulation as the user is actually driving the vehicle. Also, the system may collect and record the data with timestamps and metadata in a standardized format that makes it possible to "play back" the trip at a later time.” Here the specification describes the recording as “the user is actually driving the vehicle.” However, there is no description of recording audio or video of a surrounding environment before the user drives the vehicle.
As a result, the previously amended claims 4 and 5 contain subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claims 4 and 5 are found to fail the written description requirement.
Claim 5 depends from a rejected base claim, and therefore also lack written description based on their dependency.
As a result, claims 4 and 5 contain subject matter which lacks adequate written description.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claims 1, 8, and 15 the claims recite the language “measuring, by one or more time-of-flight (ToF) sensors, distances of different parts of the user in a cabin of the vehicle relative to various locations in the cabin of the vehicle, wherein the one or more ToF sensors are positioned at the various locations in a cabin of the vehicle” is indefinite. Claims 1, 8, and 15 also recite “one or more ToF sensors.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim could include a single ToF sensor. However, the claim goes on to recite the one or more ToF sensors are positioned at the various locations. As a result, it is not clear how the broadest interpretation of one ToF sensor may be positioned in more than one location as indicated by the claim language. In addition, the second reference of “a cabin” at line 16 should read --the cabin-- for clarity and clear antecedent in the claims. It is suggested the claim be amended to state “measuring by time-of-flight (ToF) sensors, distances of different parts of the user in a cabin of the vehicle relative to various locations in the cabin of the vehicle, wherein the ToF sensors are positioned at each of the various locations in the cabin of the vehicle” or other clarifying language to indicate the location is paired with a sensor.
In re claim 4, the claim recites the language “the data” at line 3. It is unclear which data is the data recited here as the claims include multiple data types. The examiner suggests language, such as --based on parameter data collected for the user, wherein the parameter data that is collected comprises -- or other similar clarifying language.
In re claim 5, the claim recites the limitations “recording audio or video of a surrounding environment before the user drives the vehicle;” and “recording audio or video of a surrounding environment while the user drives the vehicle.” The term “surrounding environment” is unclear as there is no orientation or context within the claim to determine what environment is referred to. For example, is this environment around the exterior of the vehicle or is this the environment inside the cabin of the vehicle. As a result, the term is indefinite as one cannot determine the scope of the claim based on this term.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore also are rejected for at least the reasons given for the base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-20 would be allowable if rewritten and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), set forth in this Office action.
As indicated in the previous office action, the prior art of record does not anticipate or obviate the following recitations “to monitor the behavior of the user, the logic when executed is further operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: measuring, by one or more time-of-flight (ToF) sensors, distances of different parts of the user in a cabin of the vehicle relative to various locations in the cabin of the vehicle, wherein the one or more ToF sensors are positioned at the various locations in a cabin of the vehicle; and synchronizing data from one or more in-cabin images of the user, data associated with personalization parameters detected by one or more electromyography sensors (EMG) sensors, and data from the one or more ToF sensors” in combination with the rest of the elements in claim 1. Claims 3-20 depend from claim 1 and therefore also include these limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been considered.
The objection to claim 4 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Applicant did not amend, address or argue any of the remaining rejections for double patenting and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as set forth above in this office action. Therefore, these rejections are maintained for the reasons given above.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 incorporating the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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 BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights