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 .
Responsive to communications on 04/17/2026
Claims 1-20 pending in the application
Claims 1-19 amended
Claim 20 new
Claims 1-8, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected
Claims 9-13 and 18 are objected to
Final Action
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.
Interview Summary
Examiner confirms interview with applicant occurred on March 24, 2026. Examiner thanks applicant for participation and discussions.
Begin Response to Arguments
Response to Drawings/Specification Objections
The drawings were previously objected to due to the specifications incorrectly outlining the process represented by Fig 5. Applicant has amended par 64 of the specifications to overcome the objection. Examiner confirms that the newly amended specifications received on 04/17/2026 corrects the previous deficiencies and overcomes the previous objections. The drawing previous objection is withdrawn by the examiner.
Response to Claim Objection
Claim 17 was previously objected to for informalities. The examiner confirms that the claim has been amended in way that overcomes the previous objection. The previous claim objection is withdrawn by the examiner.
Response to 103
Issue: Applicant has amended claim 1 to overcome the previous 103 rejection. Applicant has amended claim 1 to be tighter in scope to the proposed interview amended, and has clarified that the virtual I/O devices of the vehicle control the virtual vehicle for a racing simulation. Applicant argues against the combination of Brown in light of the amended claims. Applicant asserts that Brown then does not make obvious the new limitations of controlling the racing game using a physical I/O device of the vehicle. Rule: The MPEP 2145 states “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references” Analysis: . Examiner confirms that applicant has amended claim 1 to be more specific than the original claim 8 according to the examiners suggestions of including more vehicle structure as it relates to the virtual racing. The examiner agrees with the applicant that claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous rejection which used Brown to reject the claim off of “a racing game.” The examiner notes however that Brown could still be used in an obviousness rejection, as it is still in the same field as the claimed invention, which is vehicle simulation. Conclusion: As the claim limitations have been significantly amended, new prior art is introduced to reject the claims. Please see 103 rejection below for details.
Issue: Applicant states that the claimed system tackles a unique problem not addressed in the prior art, which is driver boredom. Applicant addresses that strategies do address this problem, that the strategies present in the prior art do not include configuring the actual vehicle into the simulator into a virtual reality game. Rule: The MPEP 2145 states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” Analysis: Examiner confirms that the prior art used in the previous rejection did not include topics relating to user boredom. Examiner notes that this is because these limitations were not claimed. The examiner confirms that the amended claim set includes portions which imply this problem (i.e.: the car is usable while charging). Conclusion: As the claim limitations have been significantly amended, new prior art is introduced to reject the claims. Please see 103 rejection below for details.
End Response to Arguments
Specification
Amendments to specification received on 04/17/2026. Amendments to specification pertain to correcting drawing objection, and do not contain new matter. Specification is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to for the following formalities
Claim 14 line 15 states “at leat one control feature” this seems to be a copying error. It was likely meant to be written as “at least one control feature”
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 1, 5-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12586484 B1 (Loeb_2018) and “Here's what's happening if you see someone steering a Tesla while it's in park” (Mogg_2019)
Claim 1:
Loeb_2018 makes obvious A system for augmented-virtual reality vehicle simulation, the system comprising: (par 9: “In various embodiments, a simulation may begin by receiving a user input to begin the simulation. The user may be wearing a headset capable of projecting images in an augmented reality manner. As such, while a user may be in a safe environment (e.g., a parked car,”)
A vehicle configured to operate as an augmented-virtual reality simulator, the vehicle including: at least one control feature configured for selective use in an actual operation mode and in a simulation mode, wherein the at least one control feature is utilized to control actual operation of the vehicle; in the actual operation mode, wherein the at least one control feature is utilized as an input/output (I/O) device to the augmented-virtual reality simulator in the simulation mode; (par 10: “For instance, in various embodiments, the term “vehicle control” may refer to a real or artificial actuator for operating a vehicle. For instance, in various embodiments, a simulation may be carried out using an actual vehicle. As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.”)
and a computerized simulation controller including programming to: (par 20: “Processor(s) 212 may include any suitable processing circuitry capable of controlling operations and functionality of headset 202, as well as facilitating communications between various components within headset 202.”)
monitor activation of the augmented-virtual reality simulator; command activation of the simulation mode based upon the activation of the augmented-virtual reality simulator; (par 28: “In some embodiments, device 216 may be used to communicate with headset 202. For instance, device 216 may include interface 216 for receiving an input representing a command to begin a simulation. “)
monitor inputs to the at least one control feature; (par 29: “In an illustrative embodiment, during a simulation, a user may attempt to steer the vehicle by rotating it accordingly. The rotational movement may be detected by vehicle control input device 228 and interpreted by processor 230 as a user input”)
and operate the augmented-virtual reality simulator based upon the inputs to the at least one control feature; (par 38: “By “interactive,” it is meant that a user may continue to enter inputs into the system that may be received by the system and used to adjust the simulation accordingly. For instance, upon receiving an input by a user to press a brake pedal in the vehicle, the interactive visual data may represent the vehicle slowing down.”)
and a headset configured to communicate with the computerized simulation controller and provide a graphical rendering to a user who is in the vehicle and wearing the headset during the simulation mode, wherein the graphical rendering is based upon the augmented-virtual reality simulator and the inputs to the at least one control feature, (par 44: “As stated with respect to FIG. 5B, vehicle 502 is merely parked in a parking lot. However, according to the perspective of user 504, vehicle 510, which is actually parked directly in front of vehicle 502, is nowhere to be seen. Instead, according to the perspective of user 504 through headset 505, user 504 is in a semi-autonomous (SAE levels 2 to 5) vehicle that is driving on a road, passing by oncoming traffic from vehicles 516 and 518. In some embodiments, headset 505 (or, alternatively, a server, a user device, or some other device that stores the simulation and can send instructions to vehicle 502) may send instructions to vehicle 502 to operate as though vehicle 502 were actually driving on the road produced by the simulation. Thus, in some embodiments, vehicle 502 may cause steering wheel to move as though vehicle 502 were actually steering vehicle 502 as vehicle 502 self-drives along the road. In some embodiments, user 504 may choose to take control of vehicle 502, and may grab steering wheel 506 and attempt to steer vehicle 502 by his or herself. Accordingly, these user inputs would be received as movement at device 512, transmitted to headset 505 (or, alternatively, a server, a user device, or some other device that stores and controls the simulation), which will ultimately cause headset 505 to adjust the output that it is providing to user 504 via lens 509, causing the simulation to react to the actions of user 504, which provides user 504 with an interactive, real-time experience in a semi-autonomous (e.g., SAE levels 2 to 5) vehicle. “)
wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator is configured to simulate, during the simulation mode in which the graphical rendering is provided to the user, (par 43: “FIG. 5B is an illustrative view of user 504 wearing a headset 505, in accordance with various embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5B, headset 505 includes a camera 507 and a lens 509. As user 504 sits in vehicle 502, user 504 may wear headset 505 in order to receive an augmented reality experience.”) an augmented- virtual reality (par 44: “As stated with respect to FIG. 5B, vehicle 502 is merely parked in a parking lot. However, according to the perspective of user 504, vehicle 510, which is actually parked directly in front of vehicle 502, is nowhere to be seen. Instead, according to the perspective of user 504 through headset 505, user 504 is in a semi-autonomous (SAE levels 2 to 5) vehicle that is driving on a road, passing by oncoming traffic from vehicles 516 and 518. In some embodiments, headset 505 (or, alternatively, a server, a user device, or some other device that stores the simulation and can send instructions to vehicle 502) may send instructions to vehicle 502 to operate as though vehicle 502 were actually driving on the road produced by the simulation. Thus, in some embodiments, vehicle 502 may cause steering wheel to move as though vehicle 502 were actually steering vehicle 502 as vehicle 502 self-drives along the road. In some embodiments, user 504 may choose to take control of vehicle 502, and may grab steering wheel 506 and attempt to steer vehicle 502 by his or herself. Accordingly, these user inputs would be received as movement at device 512, transmitted to headset 505 (or, alternatively, a server, a user device, or some other device that stores and controls the simulation), which will ultimately cause headset 505 to adjust the output that it is providing to user 504 via lens 509, causing the simulation to react to the actions of user 504, which provides user 504 with an interactive, real-time experience in a semi-autonomous (e.g., SAE levels 2 to 5) vehicle. “)
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite racing game
Mogg_2019 however makes obvious racing game (page 2 par 1: “Launched this week as part of the new Tesla Arcade games hub, the Mario Kart-like game from developer Vector Unit lets you use the Tesla’s steering wheel to race along the track as the game plays out on the vehicle’s built-in center screen.”)
Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Leob_2018 teaches an augmented reality device which uses a real vehicle in an AR simulation displayed through a headset. Mogg_2019 teaches using a real vehicle for a car simulation, but instead is done on a screen in a video game. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019.
The rationale for doing so would have been to use a motivation proposed in the prior art. Mogg_2019 page 3 par 5 states “Although the games can be played at any time when the Tesla is in park, the main idea is that they offer easy entertainment while you’re stopped at a charging station waiting for your battery to power up.“ Leob_2018 teaches a car driving simulation, but is silent that the simulation is used for a race. Instead Leob_2018 uses the simulation to test out car features mainly for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. It would be obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to use the simulation of Leob_2018 for racing, as vehicles driving in a race is well known in the art, and it would be done so in order for a user’s entertainment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulation of leob_2018 with the racing of Mogg_2019 for the benefit of providing user entertainment to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 5:
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator includes virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR),and wherein the graphical rendering provided by the headset includes at least one of: (par 34: “simulation may be displayed on a display screen of a virtual reality headset. In another embodiment, however, the simulation may be displayed through the use of an augmented reality headset.”)
a VR-based view in which visible features in an actual environment of the user are replaced with virtual images; (Not required to the presence of “at least one of”)
or an AR-based view in which images of at least some of the visible features in the actual environment are mixed with computerized graphics rendered based upon a three-dimensional model. (par 37: “In some embodiments, an augmented reality simulation may be provided as interactive visual data overlaid on everything that may be viewed through the lens of a headset. As such, the interactive visual data may appear to be projected onto a number of things, including but not limited to, a steering wheel, an speedometer (e.g., presenting a speed at which the vehicle is moving during the simulation), a rear view mirror (e.g., projecting other cars driving behind the vehicle), and a display screen on a center console and/or dashboard (e.g., displaying a “rear view” of the vehicle that would be provided from a video feed captured by a camera as the vehicle appears to be reversing during the simulation).”)
Claim 6:
The system of claim 1, wherein the graphical rendering includes a mixture of augmented reality graphics and virtual reality graphics, wherein the at least one physical 11O device utilized by the user is captured in images and graphically presented by the headset to the user as one or more augmented reality features rendered based upon a three-dimensional model, and wherein at least some portions of the graphical rendering provided by the headset are graphically presented to the user as virtual reality features corresponding to visible features in an actual environment of the user.
(par 37: “In some embodiments, an augmented reality simulation may be provided as interactive visual data overlaid on everything that may be viewed through the lens of a headset. As such, the interactive visual data may appear to be projected onto a number of things, including but not limited to, a steering wheel, an speedometer (e.g., presenting a speed at which the vehicle is moving during the simulation), a rear view mirror (e.g., projecting other cars driving behind the vehicle), and a display screen on a center console and/or dashboard (e.g., displaying a “rear view” of the vehicle that would be provided from a video feed captured by a camera as the vehicle appears to be reversing during the simulation).”)
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is effectively similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same rational. Additionally, Leob_2018 teaches the unique limitation of:
A method for augmented-virtual reality vehicle simulation, the method comprising: (par 7: “ The present disclosure, as set forth below, is generally directed to various embodiments of systems and methods related to providing a simulation of an operation of a semi-autonomous vehicle.”)
…., and wherein the at least one physical I/O device includes at least three of a steering wheel of the vehicle, an accelerator pedal of the vehicle, a brake pedal of the vehicle, or a transmission gear selector of the vehicle. ( Leob_2018 par 10: “As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.”)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb_2018 , Mogg_2019 and “VR goggles and giant touchscreen tables: How Audi explains new car technology” (Gitlin_2016)
Claim 2:
Loeb_2018 makes obvious The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the vehicle (par 19: “ In some embodiments, the display of a simulated outside environment may not be limited to a windshield, but may additionally be provided through side windows, a rear view mirror, a display screen located in a dashboard or center console, a portable display device (e.g., a laptop computer, tablet computer, etc.) or any other features and/or controls through which a user may perceive the external environment of a vehicle that he or she is operating from within.”) and at least three of the steering wheel, (par 33: “For instance, a vehicle control input device may be a … steering wheel) the accelerator pedal, ((par 33: “For instance, a vehicle control input device may be a … throttle pedal) the brake pedal, (par 33: “For instance, a vehicle control input device may be a … brake pedal) or the transmission gear selector, (not required do the presence of “at least 3 of”) (par 44: “In some embodiments, user 504 may choose to take control of vehicle 502, and may grab steering wheel 506 and attempt to steer vehicle 502 by his or herself. Accordingly, these user inputs would be received as movement at device 512, transmitted to headset 505 (or, alternatively, a server, a user device, or some other device that stores and controls the simulation), which will ultimately cause headset 505 to adjust the output that it is providing to user 504 via lens 509, causing the simulation to react to the actions of user 504, which provides user 504 with an interactive, real-time experience in a semi-autonomous (e.g., SAE levels 2 to 5) vehicle.”) wherein the accelerator pedal is configured to perform respective acceleration functions for the vehicle and the virtual vehicle during the actual operation mode and the augmented-virtual reality racing game, wherein the brake pedal is configured to perform respective braking functions for the vehicle and the virtual vehicle during the actual operation mode and the augmented-virtual reality par 39: “FIGS. 4A and 4B are an overhead view and a side view, respectively, of a system including a throttle pedal and a brake pedal that each include a vehicle control input device, in accordance with various embodiments. In various embodiments, system 400 includes brake pedal 402, throttle pedal 404, and device 406. A vehicle control input device may be, for example, an inertial measurement unit, a pressure sensor, an angular encoder, and/or any device or sensor capable of receiving inputs.”) … par 10: “For instance, in various embodiments, a simulation may be carried out using an actual vehicle. As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.”) Examiner note: Where the use of an actual vehicle, makes obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art that the brake/accelerator function as brakes/accelerators in both a real and simulated driving mode.
wherein the transmission gear selector is configured to perform respective gear selection functions for the vehicle and the virtual vehicle during the actual operation mode and the augmented-virtual reality racing game. (This limitation is not required to the presence of “at least 3 of” above)
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite a Racing game
physical … touchscreen [used as the I/O device]
wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a simplified graphical rendering of what the user is seeing through the headset during the simulation mode,
Mogg_2019 however makes obvious racing game (page 2 par 1: “Launched this week as part of the new Tesla Arcade games hub, the Mario Kart-like game from developer Vector Unit lets you use the Tesla’s steering wheel to race along the track as the game plays out on the vehicle’s built-in center screen.”)
As already stated, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulation of leob_2018 with the racing of Mogg_2019 for the benefit of providing user entertainment to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019 do not expressly recite physical … touchscreen [used as the I/O device]
wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a simplified graphical rendering of what the user is seeing through the headset during the simulation mode,
Gitlin_2016 however makes obvious physical … touchscreen [used as the I/O device] (page 4 par 1: “The screen on the passenger side has controls for the VR environment.”
wherein the touchscreen display is configured to display a simplified graphical rendering of what the user is seeing through the headset during the simulation mode, (See figure on page 4 which depicts a simplified graphical rendering of what the user is seeing)
PNG
media_image1.png
925
1625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Leob_2018 and Gitlin_2016 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Both inventions relate to an individual using a real vehicle while wearing a headset to test vehicle functions. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leob_2018 and Gitlin_2016. The rationale for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device for a predictable result.
Both Leob_2018 and Gitlin_2016 test vehicle functionality. Leob_2018 teaches a base simulation device which allows another user to control the simulation, par 35: “a simulation may be operated by one or more persons monitoring and manipulating the interactive visual data in real time. For instance, an administrator may include various elements to a simulation, such as obstructions (e.g., random pedestrians running into the path of the vehicle, rain, potholes, etc.), vehicular malfunctions (flat tires, sudden failure of an automated feature, broken lights, etc.), and other random variables that a user must account for in a real-world driving scenario.” Leob_2018 however is silent on how that monitoring and manipulation Is actually performed. Gitlin_2016 teaches having a screen on the passenger side to control the VR environment. This controlling is done for the same purposes as Leob_2018, see page 7 par 3: “We began the demo by driving off, negotiating a low-speed slalom course, then proceeding to a traffic circle. On the return leg, a virtual pedestrian meandering down the sidewalk stepped into our path, triggering pre sense city.” One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the known technique of including a passenger touchscreen is a known technique applicable to the observation and manipulation of an administrator of Leob_2018, and would recognize that applying the technique would produce the predictable result of allowing an administrator to observe and manipulate the simulation of Leob_2018.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the simulation of Leob_2018 with the touchscreen I/O device and display of Gitlin_2016 for applying the known technique of a passenger touchscreen to enable to monitoring and manipulation of Leob_2018 to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 3:
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one control feature of the vehicle includes a plurality of control features utilized to control actual operation of the vehicle during the actual operation mode of the vehicle, and, wherein the control features are utilized as input devices to control a simulation activated by the augmented-virtual reality simulator during the simulation mode; (pr 10: “For instance, in various embodiments, the term “vehicle control” may refer to a real or artificial actuator for operating a vehicle. For instance, in various embodiments, a simulation may be carried out using an actual vehicle. As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.”) Examiner note: Where one ordinarily skilled in the art understands these controls to be used for actual operation and simulation operation.
And wherein the plurality of control features includes a steering wheel, the accelerator pedal, the brake pedal, and the transmission gear selector. (par 10: “As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.” … par 13: “These human inputs 110 may then be interpreted at processing unit 116. For instance, at processing unit 116, an input 110 of a counterclockwise movement detected at device 108 may indicate that user 102 is attempting to turn the vehicle toward a frontward direction to the left of the vehicle (or, if the vehicle is operating in reverse at this point during the simulation, may be toward a rearward direction to the right of the vehicle).” … par 44: “For instance, if vehicle 502 is turned on, and user 504 steps on a throttle pedal, changes gears, or otherwise interacts with various features of vehicle 502 while operating a simulation, those features may be momentarily deactivated on vehicle 502. In this way, actions taken by user 504 that are detected at vehicle control input devices may affect a simulation, without actually affecting vehicle 502.”)
)) Examiner note: Where all the underlined portions make obvious a transmission gear selector as a control feature in the car.
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite touchscreen display
Gitlin_2016 however makes obvious touchscreen display (page 4 par 1: “The screen on the passenger side has controls for the VR environment.”)
As already stated, it would have been obvious to combine the simulation of Leob_2018 with the touchscreen I/O device and display of Gitlin_2016 for applying the known technique of a passenger touchscreen to enable to monitoring and manipulation of Leob_2018 to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 4:
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 3,wherein the computerized simulation controller further includes programming to:
Loeb_2018 makes obvious monitor a transmission mode of the vehicle; (par 13: “These human inputs 110 may then be interpreted at processing unit 116. For instance, at processing unit 116, an input 110 of a counterclockwise movement detected at device 108 may indicate that user 102 is attempting to turn the vehicle toward a frontward direction to the left of the vehicle (or, if the vehicle is operating in reverse at this point during the simulation, may be toward a rearward direction to the right of the vehicle). “) Examiner note: see logic for claim 3, where this makes obvious the invention at least monitoring the transmission mode of the vehicle.
enable activation of the augmented-virtual reality simulator (par 28: “In some embodiments, device 216 may be used to communicate with headset 202. For instance, device 216 may include interface 216 for receiving an input representing a command to begin a simulation. “) park, (par 44: “As such, vehicle 502 may include communications circuitry for receiving instructions to deactivate certain features so that actions made by user 504 do not actually occur in the real world. For instance, if vehicle 502 is turned on, and user 504 steps on a throttle pedal, changes gears, or otherwise interacts with various features of vehicle 502 while operating a simulation, those features may be momentarily deactivated on vehicle 502. In this way, actions taken by user 504 that are detected at vehicle control input devices may affect a simulation, without actually affecting vehicle 502.” … par 18: “ For instance, while the user may be sitting in a parked automobile in a garage or parking lot, display 208 may be showing that, through the windshield of the vehicle, the user is actually driving on an interstate highway. “)
wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator is configured to simulate multiple augmented-virtual reality simulations individually selectable by the user, (par 28: “ In another alternative embodiment, however, device 216, through interface 218, may allow a user to select a simulation.”) the multiple augmented-virtual reality simulations including the augmented-virtual reality racing game and one or more of a virtual test drive, a driving instruction, a boat driving simulation, or an airplane flying simulation. (par 5 :” To date, there is no formal training available for people wishing to adopt ADAS and semi-autonomous vehicle technologies to safely test out these technologies in a risk-free environment. Rather, drivers seeking to adopt these technologies must test-drive a vehicle on an actual road or highway, regardless of whether or not they are comfortable enough to do so. As shown above, most drivers lack this comfort at this time. Therefore, there is a need for relatively low cost, vehicle and mechanically immersing driving simulators to help people gain comfort and confidence with ADAS systems and semi-autonomous vehicles before they can fully adopt them and use them on the road.”) Examiner note: Which makes obvious that the simulator of Loeb_2018 is intended as a test drive simulation.
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite based upon the transmission mode indicating that
Mogg_2019 however, makes obvious based upon the transmission mode indicating that the vehicle is in park (page 2 par 2: “Take note though, Beach Buggy Racing 2 can only be played while the Tesla is in park, a sensible limitation designed to prevent confusion and distraction among video-game-loving drivers as they tool along the highway at maximum speed.”) Examiner note: Which makes obvious a transmission mode indicating the vehicle is parked.
As already stated, Loeb_2018 and Mogg_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018 and Mogg_2019.
The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Mogg_2019 requires the vehicle to be parked to avoid confusion and drivers driving along the highway. Loeb_2018 similarly implies throughout the specification that the car begins and stays parked throughout the entire simulation, see par 18: “while the user may be sitting in a parked automobile.” One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the AR/VR simulator of Loeb_2018 which also uses a real car would be unsafe to practice while the car is driving on a real road and would require the car to be parked before initializing the simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulator of Loeb_2018 with the transmission monitoring for parking of Mogg_2019 for the benefit of improved safety to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb_2018 , Mogg_2019, Gitlin_2016, and US 10977956 B1 (Madison_2021)
Claim 7:
The system of claim 4,wherein the multiple augmented- virtual reality simulations include
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite at least the boat driving simulation and the airplane flying simulation, wherein the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle, and wherein at least one of the multiple augmented-virtual reality simulations is executable by the user while the electric vehicle is charging at a charging station.
Mogg_2019 however makes obvious wherein the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle … and wherein … [the] simulations is executable by the user while the electric vehicle is charging at a charging station. (page 3 par 5 states “Although the games can be played at any time when the Tesla is in park, the main idea is that they offer easy entertainment while you’re stopped at a charging station waiting for your battery to power up.“)
As already stated, Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Leob_2018 teaches an augmented reality device which uses a real vehicle in an AR simulation displayed through a headset. Mogg_2019 teaches using a real vehicle for a car simulation, but instead is done on a screen in a video game. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to use a motivation proposed in the prior art. Mogg_2019 page 3 par 5 states “Although the games can be played at any time when the Tesla is in park, the main idea is that they offer easy entertainment while you’re stopped at a charging station waiting for your battery to power up.“ Leob_2018 teaches a car driving simulation, but is silent that the simulation can be used while the car is charging. Instead Leob_2018 uses the simulation to test out car features mainly for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles includes electric vehicles, and
It would be obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to use the simulation of Leob_2018 while an electric vehicle is parking, as it would be done so in order for a user’s entertainment with predictable results of being able to use the car while parked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulation of leob_2018 with the charging of Mogg_2019 for the benefit of providing user entertainment to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019 do not expressly recite at least the boat driving simulation and the airplane flying simulation, …. , and wherein at least one of the multiple augmented-virtual reality simulations is executable by the user
Madison_2021 however makes obvious at least the boat driving simulation and the airplane flying simulation (par 34: “In general, the input parameters may correspond to one or more features to be rendered during the virtual reality driving simulation. For example, the input parameters may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
Type of vehicle (e.g., a car, truck, motorcycle, plane, boat, watercraft, heavy machinery, forklift, etc.) to be rendered in the virtual reality driving simulation, including the make, year, and/or model of the vehicle;“)
Leob_2018, Mogg_2019, and Madison_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leob_2018, Mogg_2019, and Madison_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Madison_2021 par 3 teaches “ significant costs may be involved with hiring an instructor and purchasing and maintaining a practice vehicle.” In order for a user to save money, they would naturally want one simulator to be able to simulate a wider variety of vehicles to avoid maintaining different practice vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulator of Leob_2018 with the plane and boat simulation of Madison_2021 for the benefit of reducing costs associated with purchasing and maintaining multiple practice vehicles/simulators to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb_2018 , Mogg_2019, Gitlin_2016, Madison_2021, WO 2005076242 A1 (Bond_2005), and US 20220035752 A1 (Frey_2020)
Claim 8:
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite
actual operation mode and the simulation mode, (par 10: “For instance, in various embodiments, the term “vehicle control” may refer to a real or artificial actuator for operating a vehicle. For instance, in various embodiments, a simulation may be carried out using an actual vehicle. As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.”)
Bond_2005 however makes obvious wherein the augmented- virtual reality racing game includes a virtual race in which the user controls, using the at least one physical I/O device of the vehicle, the virtual vehicle to compete in real-time against one or more other virtual vehicles, the one or more other virtual vehicles controlled by one or more others users in one or more similarly configured vehicles selectively operable in the ,( page 23 line 15-20: “Apparatus 10 set-ups may be provided side by side to accommodate two vehicles effectively in side-by-side stations, (Examiner note: These are two real vehicles which are being used for the simulations) and can include race simulation software in computer 66 for each station that allows one driver/vehicle combination to compete against the other driver/vehicle combination instead of, or in addition to, a single driver/vehicle combination seeking to improve upon previous race times. The invention includes simulated driving apparatus which provides more than two side-by-side stations.”
Loeb_2018 and Bond_2005 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018 and Bond_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Bond_2005 page 2 line 30 states “Racing of motor vehicles is an established sport that is conducted in dedicated venues and generally involves specialized very high performance vehicles. It is also an activity often undertaken in streets, sometimes legally, but sometimes illegally by generally younger drivers and particularly in respect of drag racing. Such drivers are often inexperienced racing drivers who wish to test their skills and their cars, which are typically highly powered, against each other. “ As implied by Bond_2005, racing of cars against other users to test skills against others is a well routine and understood aspect of driving known in the art. Where the users of Loeb_2018 as well as the racing game of Mogg_2019 would be motivated to allow users to race against others in order to accomplish the well known goal of allowing users to race vehicles and test their skills in a well-established sport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the racing simulation and game of Bond_2005 and Mogg_2019 with the racing of others of Bond_2005 for the benefit of allowing users to test their skilled against one others in a well-established sport to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Bond_2005 does not expressly recite and wherein the vehicle is configured to wirelessly communicate with each similarly configured vehicle during the virtual race either indirectly via a remote server or directly via vehicle-to-vehicle communications.
Frey_2020 however makes obvious and wherein the vehicle is configured to wirelessly communicate with each similarly configured vehicle during the virtual race either indirectly via a remote server or directly via vehicle-to-vehicle communications.par 81: “The dedicated communication I/F 7630 is a communication I/F that supports a communication protocol developed for use in vehicles. The dedicated communication I/F 7630 may implement a standard protocol such as, for example, wireless access in vehicle environment (WAVE), which is a combination of institute of electrical and electronic engineers (IEEE) 802.11p as a lower layer and IEEE 1609 as a higher layer, dedicated short range communications (DSRC), or a cellular communication protocol. The dedicated communication I/F 7630 typically carries out V2X communication as a concept including one or more of communication between a vehicle and a vehicle (Vehicle to Vehicle), communication between a road and a vehicle (Vehicle to Infrastructure), communication between a vehicle and a home (Vehicle to Home), and communication between a pedestrian and a vehicle (Vehicle to Pedestrian).”)
Loeb_2018, Bond_2005 and Frey_2020 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018, Bond_2005 and Frey_2020.
The rationale for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Frey_2020 teaches simulating a vehicle using a real vehicle through an x-by-wire system, where the controls of the real vehicle are coupled to the simulation which can be displayed through VR. Leob_2018 teaches the same base device. The prior art of Frey_2020 teaches a known technique applicable to the base device, which is the use of vehicle-to-vehicle communications. One ordinarily skilled in the art could recognize that vehicle to vehicle communications of Frey_2020 are also applicable to Loeb_2018, and that applying the known technique of inclusion vehicle to vehicle communications would provide a predictable improvement to the system of Loeb_2018 by allowing it to include other cars in the simulation for different purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulator of Loeb_2018 with the vehicle to vehicle communication of Frey_2020 for the predictable improvement to allow the base invention of Loeb_2018 to communicate with other vehicles to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb_2018 , Mogg_2019, Frey_2022, and Madison_2021
Claim 14:
Claim 14 contains substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rational. Additionally.
Frey_2022 makes obvious and operate the augmented-virtual reality simulator including a driving simulator configured to simulate (par 40: “According to the embodiments described below in more detail the commands (signals) of the by-wire systems obtained from a bus connector are used as an input signal for electronic devices such as a gaming environment or a simulation environment while the vehicle itself is not moving.” two or more simulations based upon the inputs to the at lea[s]t one control feature, (par 23: “The commands of the x-by-wire system may be used as input for a simulation or gaming environment.”) the two or more simulations including at least a virtual test drive (par 42: “As another example, a simulation environment as described below in the embodiments of FIGS. 3a, b, and c may provide “Driving experiences” which can be provided by car manufacturers to customers. For example, drivers can virtually drive on race-tracks or on off-road courses. By using the technology described in the embodiments below, such experiences can be given in a real-car simulator (i.e. virtually) instead of a real driving situation. This may especially be of interest for sports-car manufacturers. Also “driving experiences” often provided by luxury or sports car manufacturers can be done in simulation instead of in real life.”) and an augmented-virtual reality racing game executable by a user of the vehicle using at least one physical I/O device selected from the at least one control feature, wherein the at least one physical I/O device is utilized to control a first virtual vehicle simulated (par 43: “Still further, the described below in the embodiments of FIGS. 3a, b, and c may provide a gaming environment for in-car gaming. Using the technology described in the embodiments, the real car can become part of the game.”) Examiners note: Where the examiner understands the embodiments of using a real car in the figures to control the headset/projectors for a game to make obvious a racing game. See also the fact that “racing game” was already mapped in claim 1.
As already stated, Loeb_2018 and Frey_2022 are analogous arts to the claimed invention from the same field of endeavor of vehicle simulation. Frey_2022 and Loeb_2018 both use a real vehicle for simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frey_2022 and Loeb_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation proposed in the prior art. Frey_2022 states par 40: “Generally speaking, future cars will contain ever more sensors, actuators and displays—and these can be used to add functionality to cars and therefore add to their value—not just while driving, but also in non-driving mode, for example for realistic gaming or simulation experiences. “ By adding more experiences to the driving simulators, Frey_2022 suggest that is increases the value of the product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the simulator system of Loeb_2018 with both the game and test drive simulation of Frey_2022 for the benefit of increasing the value of the cars to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Loeb_2018 and Frey_2022 do not expressly recite wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator enables the user to select a second virtual vehicle to simulate during the virtual test drive, the second virtual vehicle being different than the first virtual vehicle, and wherein the second virtual vehicle is selected from a plurality of virtual vehicles including at least one vehicle of a different type than the vehicle.
Madison_2021 however makes obvious wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator enables the user to select a second virtual vehicle to simulate during the virtual test drive, the second virtual vehicle being different than the first virtual vehicle, and wherein the second virtual vehicle is selected from a plurality of virtual vehicles including at least one vehicle of a different type than the vehicle. (par 33: “The method 200 may begin with one or more components of the system 100 receiving input parameters (see FIG. 2 at block 202). In some embodiments, this step may involve the simulator module 112 causing the computer 138 to receive input parameters from the user. The input parameters may also be inputted by the user through one or more of the other client devices 136 and 140-144. In some embodiments, the input parameters may transmitted over the computer network 106 and received by the server 120. In general, the input parameters may correspond to one or more features to be rendered during the virtual reality driving simulation. For example, the input parameters may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
(1) Type of vehicle (e.g., a car, truck, motorcycle, plane, boat, watercraft, heavy machinery, forklift, etc.) to be rendered in the virtual reality driving simulation, including the make, year, and/or model of the vehicle;“) Examiner note: Where this makes obvious selecting between multiple different vehicles which are different types from each other.
As already stated, Madison_2021 par 3 teaches “ significant costs may be involved with hiring an instructor and purchasing and maintaining a practice vehicle.” In order for a user to save money, they would naturally want one simulator to be able to simulate a wider variety of vehicles to avoid maintaining different practice vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulator of Leob_2018 with the different vehicle type simulation of Madison_2021 for the benefit of reducing costs associated with purchasing and maintaining multiple practice vehicles/simulators to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 15:
The system of claim 14, wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator enables the user
Loeb_2018 makes obvious wherein the at least one physical I/O device includes at least four of a touchscreen display in the vehicle, the steering wheel, the accelerator pedal, the brake pedal, or the transmission gear selector,
“As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.” … par 13: “These human inputs 110 may then be interpreted at processing unit 116. For instance, at processing unit 116, an input 110 of a counterclockwise movement detected at device 108 may indicate that user 102 is attempting to turn the vehicle toward a frontward direction to the left of the vehicle (or, if the vehicle is operating in reverse at this point during the simulation, may be toward a rearward direction to the right of the vehicle).” … par 44: “For instance, if vehicle 502 is turned on, and user 504 steps on a throttle pedal, changes gears, or otherwise interacts with various features of vehicle 502 while operating a simulation, those features may be momentarily deactivated on vehicle 502. In this way, actions taken by user 504 that are detected at vehicle control input devices may affect a simulation, without actually affecting vehicle 502.”)
)) Examiner note: Where all the underlined portions make obvious a transmission gear selector as a control feature in the car.
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite to select from a plurality of maps upon which to operate the second virtual vehicle during the virtual test drive, wherein the plurality of virtual vehicles includes at least a virtual boat and a virtual airplane,
wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle, and wherein the two or more simulations are executable by the user while the electric vehicle is charging at a charging station.
Madison_2021 however, makes obvious to select from a plurality of maps upon which to operate the second virtual vehicle during the virtual test drive (par 34: “In general, the input parameters may correspond to one or more features to be rendered during the virtual reality driving simulation. For example, the input parameters may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:” …. Par 36: “Type of road (e.g., city, rural, suburban, mountainous, off-road, etc.), including existing real-world streets or fictional computer-generated roads) , wherein the plurality of virtual vehicles includes at least a virtual boat and a virtual airplane, (par 35: “(1) Type of vehicle (e.g., a car, truck, motorcycle, plane, boat, watercraft, heavy machinery, forklift, etc.) to be rendered in the virtual reality driving simulation, including the make, year, and/or model of the vehicle;”) Examiner note: Where the examiner views this as a test drive, see par 3: “on-road test,” but see also mapping to test drive in claim 14.
As already states, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulator of Leob_2018 with the different vehicle type simulation of Madison_2021 for the benefit of reducing costs associated with purchasing and maintaining multiple practice vehicles/simulators to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Loeb_2018 and Madison_2021 do not expressly recite wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle, and wherein the two or more simulations are executable by the user while the electric vehicle is charging at a charging station.
Mogg_2019 however makes obvious wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle, and wherein the two or more simulations are executable by the user while the electric vehicle is charging at a charging station. (page 3 par 5 states “Although the games can be played at any time when the Tesla is in park, the main idea is that they offer easy entertainment while you’re stopped at a charging station waiting for your battery to power up.“)
As already stated, Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Leob_2018 teaches an augmented reality device which uses a real vehicle in an AR simulation displayed through a headset. Mogg_2019 teaches using a real vehicle for a car simulation, but instead is done on a screen in a video game. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to use a motivation proposed in the prior art. Mogg_2019 page 3 par 5 states “Although the games can be played at any time when the Tesla is in park, the main idea is that they offer easy entertainment while you’re stopped at a charging station waiting for your battery to power up.“ Leob_2018 teaches a car driving simulation, but is silent that the simulation can be used while the car is charging. Instead Leob_2018 uses the simulation to test out car features mainly for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles includes electric vehicles, and
It would be obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to use the simulation of Leob_2018 while an electric vehicle is parking, as it would be done so in order for a user’s entertainment with predictable results of being able to use the car while parked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulation of leob_2018 with the charging of Mogg_2019 for the benefit of providing user entertainment to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb_2018 , Mogg_2019, Frey_2022, Madison_2021 , US 20220036758 A1 (Oh_2022), and US 20180352282 A1 (Lin_2018)
16. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14, wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator is configured to:
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite Identify bumpy road condition of a road traversed by the first virtual vehicle during the augmented-virtual reality racing game or by the second virtual vehicle during the virtual test drive; and Control a vibration unit in a seat of the user such that the seat vibrates based upon the first virtual vehicle or the second virtual vehicle traversing the road with the bumpy road condition.
Oh_2022 however makes obvious Identify bumpy road condition of a road traversed by the first virtual vehicle during the augmented-virtual reality racing game or by the second virtual vehicle during the virtual test drive; (par 210: “ Furthermore, the test-driving experience system can provide a virtual experience mode with respect to the first vehicle function upon execution of the vehicle function virtual experience mode in an embodiment.” … par 219: “the test-driving experience system may deliver effects such as vibration, tilting and/or shock corresponding to the first vehicle function virtual experience scenario image to the corresponding displayed vehicle in connection with the active suspension system 550 and/or the virtual driving device”) and Control a vibration unit such that the seat vibrates based upon the first virtual vehicle or the second virtual vehicle traversing the road with the bumpy road condition. (par 221: “For example, in a case where a vehicle is traveling on an unpaved road in the first vehicle function virtual experience scenario image, the test-driving experience system can control the active suspension system 550 and/or the virtual driving device 500 such that irregular vibration and shock effects are delivered to the corresponding displayed vehicle.”)
Loeb_2018 and Oh_2022 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018 and Oh_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Both Loeb_2018 and Oh_2022 use real cars to simulate driving, where Oh_2022 uses a display vehicle in a showroom. Oh_2022 par 137 states “Referring to FIGS. 5 and 6, the virtual driving device 500 may be a device that provides predetermined vibrating and/or tilting effects to the corresponding displayed vehicle in order to realize a more realistic driving feeling when virtual driving based on augmented reality content is performed in the test-driving experience service using the displayed vehicle in an embodiment of the present invention.” When conducting the simulation of Leob_2018, one ordinarily skilled in the art would also incorporate haptic feedback, specifically a vibrating over a bumpy road condition, in order to realize a more realistic driving feeling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulation of Loeb_2018 with vibration haptics of Oh_2022 for the benefit of providing a more realistic driving experience to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Loeb_2018 and Oh_2022 do not expressly recite in a seat
Lin_2018 however makes obvious in a seat (par 23: “ For example, a head-mounted virtual-reality display might include headphones and be combined with a seat-mounted haptic rumble unit and one or more motion-sensitive handheld control units.”)
Loeb_2018, Oh_2022, and Lin_2018 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle augmentative media. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018, Oh_2022, and Lin_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been a simple substitution of known elements for another to obtain predictable results. Oh_2022 teaches creating a vibrating effect for a driver, and does this using the real vehicles suspension. Lin_2018 proposes an alternative method, which is a seat-mounted haptic rumble unit. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that putting a rumble unit in a seat could be used to cause the seat to vibrate and be used in the same way as proposed by Oh_2022 to simulate driving on a bumpy road condition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to Combine the simulations Loeb_2018 and Oh_2022 with haptic feedback when driving over a bumpy road, with the usage of a rumble unit in the seat of Lin_2018 due to the usage of a predictable simple substitution.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb_2018 , Mogg_2019, and “Best App Lab Games To Play On Oculus Quest And Quest 2” (Baker_2021)
Claim 19:
The method of claim 17, further comprising,
Loeb_2018 makes obvious monitor a transmission mode of the vehicle; (par 13: “These human inputs 110 may then be interpreted at processing unit 116. For instance, at processing unit 116, an input 110 of a counterclockwise movement detected at device 108 may indicate that user 102 is attempting to turn the vehicle toward a frontward direction to the left of the vehicle (or, if the vehicle is operating in reverse at this point during the simulation, may be toward a rearward direction to the right of the vehicle). “) Examiner note: see logic for claim 3, where this makes obvious the invention at least monitoring the transmission mode of the vehicle.
enable activation of the augmented-virtual reality simulator (par 28: “In some embodiments, device 216 may be used to communicate with headset 202. For instance, device 216 may include interface 216 for receiving an input representing a command to begin a simulation. “) park, (par 44: “As such, vehicle 502 may include communications circuitry for receiving instructions to deactivate certain features so that actions made by user 504 do not actually occur in the real world. For instance, if vehicle 502 is turned on, and user 504 steps on a throttle pedal, changes gears, or otherwise interacts with various features of vehicle 502 while operating a simulation, those features may be momentarily deactivated on vehicle 502. In this way, actions taken by user 504 that are detected at vehicle control input devices may affect a simulation, without actually affecting vehicle 502.” … par 18: “ For instance, while the user may be sitting in a parked automobile in a garage or parking lot, display 208 may be showing that, through the windshield of the vehicle, the user is actually driving on an interstate highway. “)
monitoring movement of the user's hands during the simulation mode; (par 33: “For instance, a headset may display a “button” that a user may “press” through a pointing gesture at a specific spatial location, which may cause the vehicle to be identified.”)
and activating a virtual button in the virtual vehicle upon detecting a touchless action in which at least one hand of the user is moved to a location corresponding to the virtual button. (par 33: “In an alternative embodiment, the captured image(s) may include an image of a gesture made by the user. For instance, a user may be wearing a headset that presents an augmented reality. The headset may display to the user a visual interface for selecting various operations related to the simulation. Using the camera, the headset may receive images of gestures made by the user that represent various commands that a system can carry out. For instance, a headset may display a “button” that a user may “press” through a pointing gesture at a specific spatial location, which may cause the vehicle to be identified.”)
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite based upon the transmission mode indicating that the vehicle is in park,
wherein the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle,
and wherein enabling activation of the augmented-virtual reality simulator includes enabling the user to execute the augmented-virtual reality racing game while the electric vehicle is charging at a charging station;
controlling a virtual steering wheel of the virtual vehicle based on a position of the user's hands in the air during the simulation mode;
graphically rendering, through the headset, virtual hands mimicking the movement of the user's hands, wherein positions of the virtual hands are graphically rendered based on image data providing actual locations of the user's hands in the vehicle;
Mogg_2019 however makes obvious based upon the transmission mode indicating that the vehicle is in park, page 2 par 2: “Take note though, Beach Buggy Racing 2 can only be played while the Tesla is in park, a sensible limitation designed to prevent confusion and distraction among video-game-loving drivers as they tool along the highway at maximum speed.”) Examiner note: Which makes obvious a transmission mode indicating the vehicle is parked. wherein the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle, and wherein enabling activation of the augmented-virtual reality simulator includes enabling the user to execute the augmented-virtual reality racing game while the electric vehicle is charging at a charging station; (page 3 par 5 states “Although the games can be played at any time when the Tesla is in park, the main idea is that they offer easy entertainment while you’re stopped at a charging station waiting for your battery to power up.“)
As already stated, Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Leob_2018 teaches an augmented reality device which uses a real vehicle in an AR simulation displayed through a headset. Mogg_2019 teaches using a real vehicle for a car simulation, but instead is done on a screen in a video game. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leob_2018 and Mogg_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to use a motivation proposed in the prior art. Mogg_2019 page 3 par 5 states “Although the games can be played at any time when the Tesla is in park, the main idea is that they offer easy entertainment while you’re stopped at a charging station waiting for your battery to power up.“ Leob_2018 teaches a car driving simulation, but is silent that the simulation can be used while the car is charging. Instead Leob_2018 uses the simulation to test out car features mainly for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles includes electric vehicles, and
It would be obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to use the simulation of Leob_2018 while an electric vehicle is parking, as it would be done so in order for a user’s entertainment with predictable results of being able to use the car while parked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulation of leob_2018 with the charging of Mogg_2019 for the benefit of providing user entertainment to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Loeb_2018 and Mogg_2019 do not expressly recite controlling a virtual steering wheel of the virtual vehicle based on a position of the user's hands in the air during the simulation mode;
graphically rendering, through the headset, virtual hands mimicking the movement of the user's hands, wherein positions of the virtual hands are graphically rendered based on image data providing actual locations of the user's hands in the vehicle;
Baker_2021 however makes obvious controlling a virtual steering wheel of the virtual vehicle based on a position of the user's hands in the air during the simulation mode;
graphically rendering, through the headset, virtual hands mimicking the movement of the user's hands, wherein positions of the virtual hands are graphically rendered based on image data providing actual locations of the user's hands in the vehicle;
See the video of V-Speedway Alpha. Where as the examiner understands this game, the game depicts virtual user hands in a virtual screen which control a virtual steering wheel. This is done based on the position of the users hands, rather than a physical steering wheel being moved.
PNG
media_image2.png
851
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiners note: From the examiners understanding, this game supports both controller and hand tracking capabilities. This is not a game that uses a real steering wheel, this is a standalone consumer quest device with the app being operable using the device. However, the examiner would like to note that the claim itself does not require that no controller be used.
Loeb_2018, Mogg_2019 and Baker_2021 analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018, Mogg_2019 and Baker_2021.The rationale for doing so would be to substitute known prior art elements to obtain a predictable result. The prior art of Leob_2018 uses the steering wheel of the vehicle to move the steering wheel in virtual reality. Virtual reality technology is known to have racing games with hand tracking capabilities for turning a steering wheel. One ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date would know be aware of the prior art of virtual reality racing simulations, and would be able to make the simple substitution of using hand tracking in virtual reality, as is used in VR gaming, as opposed to a real steering wheel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulator of Loeb_2018 with the hand tracking technology of Baker_2021 for the substitution of steering methods to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb_2018 , Mogg_2019, Bond_2005, and Frey_2020
Claim 20:
The method of claim 17, further comprising:
Loeb_2018 makes obvious operable in the actual operation mode and the simulation mode(par 10: “For instance, in various embodiments, the term “vehicle control” may refer to a real or artificial actuator for operating a vehicle. For instance, in various embodiments, a simulation may be carried out using an actual vehicle. As such, a vehicle control may be a car steering wheel, a throttle pedal, a brake pedal, and various other components of an actual vehicle.”)
Loeb_2018 does not expressly recite enabling, during simulation of the augmented-virtual reality racing game, the user to compete the virtual vehicle in a virtual race against a second virtual vehicle controlled by a second user in a separate vehicle than the vehicle, the separate vehicle being selectively operable
and coordinating, via wireless communications between the vehicle and the separate vehicle, parameters of the virtual vehicle and the second virtual vehicle during the virtual race, the parameters including at least two of a location of the virtual vehicle and the second virtual vehicle, a trajectory of the virtual vehicle and the second virtual vehicle, or an engine speed of the virtual vehicle and the second virtual vehicle.
Bond_2005 however makes obvious enabling, during simulation of the augmented-virtual reality racing game, the user to compete the virtual vehicle in a virtual race against a second virtual vehicle controlled by a second user in a separate vehicle than the vehicle, the separate vehicle being selectively operable in the ,( page 23 line 15-20: “Apparatus 10 set-ups may be provided side by side to accommodate two vehicles effectively in side-by-side stations, (Examiner note: These are two real vehicles which are being used for the simulations) and can include race simulation software in computer 66 for each station that allows one driver/vehicle combination to compete against the other driver/vehicle combination instead of, or in addition to, a single driver/vehicle combination seeking to improve upon previous race times. The invention includes simulated driving apparatus which provides more than two side-by-side stations.”
and coordinating, ,( page 23 line 15-20: “Apparatus 10 set-ups may be provided side by side to accommodate two vehicles effectively in side-by-side stations, (Examiner note: These are two real vehicles which are being used for the simulations) and can include race simulation software in computer 66 for each station that allows one driver/vehicle combination to compete against the other driver/vehicle combination) Examiner note: Where the above limitation of coordinating trajectories, location, and speed is implied and inherent in a race where two drivers are competing against each other.
As stated earlier Loeb_2018 and Bond_2005 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018 and Bond_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Bond_2005 page 2 line 30 states “Racing of motor vehicles is an established sport that is conducted in dedicated venues and generally involves specialized very high performance vehicles. It is also an activity often undertaken in streets, sometimes legally, but sometimes illegally by generally younger drivers and particularly in respect of drag racing. Such drivers are often inexperienced racing drivers who wish to test their skills and their cars, which are typically highly powered, against each other. “ As implied by Bond_2005, racing of cars against other users to test skills against others is a well routine and understood aspect of driving known in the art. Where the users of Loeb_2018 as well as the racing game of Mogg_2019 would be motivated to allow users to race against others in order to accomplish the well known goal of allowing users to race vehicles and test their skills in a well-established sport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the racing simulation and game of Bond_2005 and Mogg_2019 with the racing of others of Bond_2005 for the benefit of allowing users to test their skilled against one others in a well-established sport to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Bond_2005 does not expressly recite via wireless communications
Frey_2020 however makes obvious via wireless communications par 81: “The dedicated communication I/F 7630 is a communication I/F that supports a communication protocol developed for use in vehicles. The dedicated communication I/F 7630 may implement a standard protocol such as, for example, wireless access in vehicle environment (WAVE), which is a combination of institute of electrical and electronic engineers (IEEE) 802.11p as a lower layer and IEEE 1609 as a higher layer, dedicated short range communications (DSRC), or a cellular communication protocol. The dedicated communication I/F 7630 typically carries out V2X communication as a concept including one or more of communication between a vehicle and a vehicle (Vehicle to Vehicle), communication between a road and a vehicle (Vehicle to Infrastructure), communication between a vehicle and a home (Vehicle to Home), and communication between a pedestrian and a vehicle (Vehicle to Pedestrian).”)
As stated before Loeb_2018, Bond_2005 and Frey_2020 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Loeb_2018, Bond_2005 and Frey_2020.
The rationale for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Frey_2020 teaches simulating a vehicle using a real vehicle through an x-by-wire system, where the controls of the real vehicle are coupled to the simulation which can be displayed through VR. Leob_2018 teaches the same base device. The prior art of Frey_2020 teaches a known technique applicable to the base device, which is the use of vehicle-to-vehicle communications. One ordinarily skilled in the art could recognize that vehicle to vehicle communications of Frey_2020 are also applicable to Loeb_2018, and that applying the known technique of inclusion vehicle to vehicle communications would provide a predictable improvement to the system of Loeb_2018 by allowing it to include other cars in the simulation for different purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the car simulator of Loeb_2018 with the vehicle to vehicle communication of Frey_2020 for the predictable improvement to allow the base invention of Loeb_2018 to communicate with other vehicles to obtain the invention as specified in the claims
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 18 are 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 examiner would like to outline potentially allowable subject matter in respect to the currently identified relevant prior art.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 7, wherein the multiple augmented- virtual reality simulations further include the virtual test drive, wherein the virtual test drive includes one or more simulations in which the user virtually test drives one or more vehicles different than the vehicle, the one or more vehicles including at least a first new vehicle currently for sale through a car dealership, wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator is configured to simulate, during the virtual test drive, a virtual salesperson for answering questions about the first new vehicle being test driven by the user, the virtual salesperson being rendered through the headset sitting in a seat next to the user during the virtual test drive, and wherein current sales incentives associated with the first new vehicle are scrolled across a view of the user as the virtual test drive is simulated
Claim 9 contains potentially allowable subject matter when considered in combination with all of its limitations inherited from claims 7, 4, 3, and 1. The closest prior art is US 20220036758 A1 (Oh_2022). Oh_2022 teaches using a real vehicle to conduct a test drive in a parked vehicle in a showroom. However the prior art of Oh_2022 does not expressly recite that a virtual salesperson is rendered sitting in the sear nest to the user in the virtual test drive, nor that the current sales incentives associated with the first new vehicle specifically are scrolled across a view of the user as the test drive is being simulated.
Claim 10:The system of claim 7, wherein the multiple augmented- virtual reality simulations further include the virtual test drive and the driving instruction, wherein the driving instruction is executable in the simulation mode to provide a vehicle training simulation for a student driver of the vehicle, and wherein the system further comprises a simulation operation module configured to provide playback of the vehicle training simulation along with annotated critiques of the student driver's simulated driving.
Claim 10 contains potentially allowable subject matter when considered in combination with all of its limitations inherited from claims 7, 4, 3, and 1. Many references disclose using driving simulators to provide instructions for a student piloting a real car configured as a simulator. The closest prior art US 10977956 B1 (Madison_2021) teaches a simulator for a student driver configured to provide multiple simulations as well as feedback to a user. Madison_2021 teaches recording user data using a VR simulation (19), as well as having a module analyze the users recording (51).However, this recording is not played back to the student with annotated critiques of their simulated driving from within the augmented “real car” simulator.
Claim 11:
The system of claim 10,wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator configured to simulate operating a virtual boat during the boat driving simulation and simulate operating a virtual airplane during the airplane flying simulation,
wherein during the boat driving simulation:
the simulation operation module is configured to simulate a wave action upon the virtual boat by utilizing an electronic seat of the vehicle to rock and sway the user;
and the transmission gear selector of the vehicle is configured, when utilized by the user, to simulate a throttle action in the virtual boat,
and wherein during the airplane flying simulation: the steering wheel of the vehicle is configured to control operation of the virtual airplane such that when the user pushes the steering wheel forward, the graphical rendering shows the virtual airplane pushing forward into a dive, and when the user pulls back on the steering wheel, the graphical rendering shows the virtual airplane pulling back into a climb;
and the brake pedal and the accelerator pedal of the vehicle are configured, when utilized by the user, to respectively simulate left and right rudder controls of the virtual airplane.
Claim 11 contains potentially allowable subject matter when considered in combination with all of its limitations inherited from claims 10, 7, 4, 3, and 1. Many references used in the office action make obvious using a real life or car simulator to also simulate various vehicles such as boats and planes. However, these references do not discuss specific hardware of the real life car being used, specifically as mentioned above.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 10,wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator configured to simulate operating a virtual boat during the boat driving simulation and simulate operating a virtual airplane during the airplane flying simulation,
wherein during the boat driving simulation:
the simulation operation module is configured to simulate a wave action upon the virtual boat by utilizing an electronic seat of the vehicle to rock and sway the user;
and the transmission gear selector of the vehicle is configured, when utilized by the user, to simulate a throttle action in the virtual boat,
and wherein during the airplane flying simulation: the steering wheel of the vehicle is configured to control operation of the virtual airplane such that when the user pushes the steering wheel forward, the graphical rendering shows the virtual airplane pushing forward into a dive, and when the user pulls back on the steering wheel, the graphical rendering shows the virtual airplane pulling back into a climb;
and the brake pedal and the accelerator pedal of the vehicle are configured, when utilized by the user, to respectively simulate left and right rudder controls of the virtual airplane.
Claim 12 contains potentially allowable subject matter when considered in combination with all of its limitations inherited from claims 11, 10, 7, 4, 3, and 1. Many references used in the office action make obvious using a real life or car simulator to also simulate various vehicles such as boats and planes, as well as haptic responses in those simulations. However, these references do not discuss these specific responses in relation to the hardware of the vehicle. Closest prior art US 20180352282 A1 (Lin_2018) teaches augmented media which can be used in a vehicle. Lin_2018 discusses mapping vehicle information in relating to the media which is then incorporated into that media. For example Temperature, light level, traffic conditions, ambient sounds, and other data (39).
Claim 13:
The system of claim 8,wherein the augmented-virtual reality simulator includes limited-edition non-fungible tokens, and wherein the limited-edition non-fungible tokens enable the user to operate a virtual limited-edition vehicle during the augmented-virtual reality racing game and/or utilize a virtual leather wrapped steering wheel with an insignia to operate the virtual vehicle during the augmented-virtual reality racing game.
Claim 13 contains potentially allowable subject matter when considered in combination with all of its limitations inherited from claims 8, 7, 4, 3, and 1 which it is dependent on. Closest prior art US 20220339546 A1 (Brown_2022) teaches the use of NFT’s in a racing videogame which can be configured in virtual reality (36). However, the prior art of Brown_2022 and other cited prior art do not specifically state that the NFT tokens themselves are limited edition tokens, and that the NFT tokens are used specifically for either a limited edition only vehicle, or a limited edition leather steering wheel to be specifically utilized in an augmented reality virtual racing game.
Claim 18:The method of claim 17, wherein monitoring inputs to the at least one control feature includes monitoring inputs to at least four of a touchscreen display of the vehicle, the steering wheel, the accelerator pedal, the brake pedal, or the transmission gear selector, wherein providing the graphical rendering to the user includes presenting a user-selectable mixture of augmented reality graphics based on images of the vehicle's interior and virtual reality graphics representing a simulated environment external to the vehicle, and wherein the graphical rendering is based on a selection from the user indicating how much of the graphical rendering is virtual and how much is augmented.
Claim 18 contains potentially allowable subject matter when considered in combination with all of its limitations inherited from claim 17 which it is dependent on. The prior art contains many examples of a real vehicle being used in an augmented reality simulation, where the augmented reality simulation is based on graphical renderings of images of a vehicles interior. However, the prior art does not expressly recite a system with a user selectable mixture of graphics which are based on the vehicles interior and virtual reality graphics external to the vehicle, as well as the graphical rendering being based on a user indicating how much of the graphical rendering is virtual vs augmented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights