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 filed June 29, 2026. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, and 17-20 are pending, of which claims 1, and 9 have been amended, claims 2, 8, 10, and 16 have been canceled, and 17-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
33. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0051589 by Madison (“Madison”) in view of US Publication No. 2016/0019807 by Uchida et al. (“Uchida”) and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0036758 by Oh (“Oh”).
In re claims 1 and 9, Madison discloses a method and a driving simulator comprising a controller programmed to [Fig. 1, ¶7]: receive data about a simulated driving environment maintained by the driving simulator [¶¶7,17, 31, 49, 51-61, among others, describe driving simulator receiving data about driving scenario to render as a VR environment for the driver]; receive driving actions performed by a driver of a vehicle being driven a driver [¶¶25, 29, 37, 51-61, 74-76, among others, describe receiving inputs corresponding to driver actions, such as steering]; simulate operation of a vehicle being driven by the driver based on the data about the simulated driving environment and the driving actions performed by the driver, and updating a state of the vehicle based on the first driving actions and the second driving actions [¶¶7,17,51-61,65,74-76,105, among others, describe simulating driving of vehicle with driver assistance system where driving transitions from autonomous driving (driving action performed by assistive tech-autonomous state) to manual driving (driving action performed by driver-manual state) including steering, speed, etc.]; receive driver data associated with the driver [¶¶62-67, among others, receiving user performance data during simulation]; determine whether the driver is distracted based on the driver data [¶¶62-67, among others, describes determining situation awareness, for example, monitoring eye movement to measure user’s attention to surrounding environment, including whether user's head was turned away from the road for an excessive amount of time (distraction)]; and upon determination that the driver is distracted, simulate a particular driving event while the driver is distracted [¶¶66-71, among others, describes providing feedback to the driver based on user performance data including a user’s attention. In one example, feedback determined during the simulation based on the driver’s performance of failure to be aware of a roadway sign, such as a stop sign (i.e., being distracted) with the result in updating the driving scenario to include striking a pedestrian (simulated event)].
Madison teaches a driving simulator including simulating assistive driving technology. Madison simulates assisted driving at various levels to control the vehicle including handing over vehicle operation from assisted driving to the driver and user’s response to environmental conditions. Madison does not explicitly describe simulating assisting the driver when it determined the driver is distracted.
Uchida teaches determining whether the driver is distracted based on the driver data [¶¶69-73, 83-85, 116, 119, among others, describes a driver condition measurement unit for detecting the condition of the driver being inattention is detected (distraction) from data, such as eye tracking and biometric data such as heartbeat]; and upon determination that the driver is distracted, simulate a particular driving event while the driver is distracted [¶¶116, 119, among others, describes providing a risky scenario when driver inattention (distraction) is detected, for example, pedestrian rushes out from behind a stopped car (simulated event)] and perform operation of the assistive driving technology after simulating the particular simulated driving event while the driver is distracted [¶¶151-152, among others, describe an alert system to detect an obstacle and assist the driver by providing an alert such that the driver able to take action].
Madison and Uchida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulator of Madison to perform operation of the assistive driving technology after simulating the particular simulated driving event while the driver is distracted, as taught by Uchida, in order to improve driver performance, e.g., improving driver attention and technique, see, e.g.,¶¶12,13.
Madison in view of Uchida teaches receive driver data associated with the driver; determine whether the driver is distracted based on the driver data; upon determination that the driver is distracted, simulate a particular driving event while the driver is distracted; and perform operation of assistive driving technology after simulating the particular simulated driving event while the driver is distracted. Madison in view of Uchida does not explicitly teach operation of assistive driving technology in the form of determining second driving actions to be performed based on the simulated driving event, and simulating operation of the vehicle based on the second driving actions.
Oh teaches a driving simulator to teach people about smart vehicles that include core technology related to safety, such as obstacle detection and collision detection or reduction, for example, an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), an advanced emergency braking system (AEBS) shown in Figs. 8, 11, & 12, and ¶¶232-235, 245-263, among others, which teach a simulator for virtual scenarios including simulating driver assist driving actions such as automatic breaking for detected human object in front of vehicle.
Madison, Uchida, and Oh are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulator of Madison in view of Uchida to perform operation of the assistive driving technology to simulate assisted driving actions, for example AEBS for pedestrian, instead of just an alert (of Uchida), after simulating the particular simulated driving event while the driver is distracted, as taught by Oh, in order to improve driver satisfaction, e.g., by improving understanding of driver assistive technology and teaching a user about a cars functionality prior to purchase, see, e.g.,¶¶11,28-33.
In re claims 3 and 11, Madison discloses generating driving scenario data; and simulating operation of the vehicle based on the driving scenario data [¶¶39-51, 60-71, among others, describes generating a simulation of driving scenario based on user input].
In re claims 4 and 12, Madison discloses the driving scenario data comprises locations of objects and behavior of other road agents in a simulated environment [¶¶38-49, among others describes driving conditions and obstacle for the scenario’s simulations (e.g., stop sign, vehicle in blind spot, lane departure of another vehicle, another vehicle running red light, etc.)].
In re claims 5 and 13, Madison discloses the driver data comprises one or more images of the driver [¶¶21, 22, 29, 64, 78, among others, describe a head tracking unit including camera for capturing/recording body movement of driver (head, torso, arms, legs, hands, feet, etc.) during driving simulation].
In re claims 6 and 14, Madison discloses determining whether the driver is distracted based on a direction of a gaze of the eyes of the driver [¶¶21, 22, 29 62-67, 78, 80, among others, describes determining situation awareness, for example, monitoring eye movement (gaze) to measure user’s attention to surrounding environment, including whether user's head was turned away from the road (direction) for an excessive amount of time (distraction)].
In re claims 7 and 15, Madison discloses the driver data comprises biological data associated with the driver [¶¶37, 78 describes physiological sensor for recording user performance data (e.g., heart, breathing, temp, blood pressure, etc.,)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and remarks. The claims as amended recite a practical application which includes providing a simulation with driver actions, then determining the driver is distracted and performing operation of assistive driving technology after simulating the particular simulated driving event while the driver is distracted by determining second driving actions to be performed based on the simulated driving event, and simulating operation of the vehicle based on the second driving actions which specific physical structure and arrangement of elements that is significantly more than recitation of the abstract concept, and which allows the driver assisted technology to be evaluated in response to realistic driver conditions while not endangering drivers or vehicles, as would be required under actual driving conditions.
With regard to the rejections under Section 103, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“The Examiner relies on Uchida to teach the claimed feature regarding "upon determination that the driver is distracted, simulate a particular driving event while the driver is distracted". Office Action, Pgs. 7-8. In particular, the Examiner relies on Para. [0119] of Uchida to teach this feature. However, this paragraph of Uchida discloses that a risky situation, such as a pedestrian rushing out from behind a stopped car, may be reproduced using a driving simulator. However, the risky situation in Uchida is not reproduced in response to a determination that the driver is distracted. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the features of amended independent claims 1 and 9.”
This argument is not understood, and the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Uchida teaches a driver condition measurement unit 40a that measures the condition of the driver, such as a gaze direction, position of a gaze point, heartbeat, and switching operation ¶¶70,71. The information representing the condition of the driver such that the gaze direction of the driver is away from the traveling direction of the path with the predetermined angle or more for the predetermined duration or more, the condition of the driver being inattention (i.e., driver is distracted) is detected ¶83. Paragraph ¶119 (and ¶116) explicitly teaches providing a risky situation (simulated driving event) “when … the condition of the driver being inattention is detected,” in other words, when the driver is distracted.
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.
US 20090306880 describes an evaluation method for evaluating a vehicle driving assist system through simulation of vehicle driving.
CN 108248610 describes distraction detection unit for assistive driving that receives a collected behavior index data, establishes a distraction driving detection model, extracts the significant difference of target variable data provided to the distracted behavior recognizing unit, and establishes the distraction behavior recognition model based on multi-class logistic regression model, calculating and analyzing the specific distraction behavior. An identification result is transmitted to the adaptive warning chip when the driver is distracted.
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