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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/192,504 filed on 03/29/2023.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 12/23/2025.
• Applicant’s amendments to the claims 1, 12, 19 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: input devices and client device in claims 1-2, 7-9, 12-13, 18-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, 12-14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeta (US20220068052A1) in view of Iagnemma (US20180113463A1), further in view of Faac (https://www.faac.com/commercial/truck/tt-1000-truck-simulator/).
Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 19:
Maeta teaches:
store, in memory, a predetermined path for a simulated roadway vehicle to travel in a simulated environment, the predetermined path indicating one or more trajectories for the simulated roadway vehicle within the simulated environment; (Maeta, para[69], “storing data such as road and street locations). Such data is stored on the memory” and para[0128], “simulated operation of the AV”, para[0149], “simulation 1606 of the planning module 404 can generate a simulated planned trajectory”)
execute an application to cause the simulated environment to appear on the display in an autonomous mode in which the application is configured to simulate the simulated roadway vehicle driving by updating the display over time according to the predetermined path, (Maeta, para[0128], “simulated operation of the AV”, and para[134], “the computing system 1314 runs a software application … to commence simulation…the computer 1314 can present—e.g. display on a graphical user interface 1316—one or more options to vary conditions (i.e. vary conditions from those in which the AV was operating) for the simulated data”, and para[0149], “simulation 1606 of the planning module 404 can generate a simulated planned trajectory”)
wherein the application in the autonomous mode simulates driving the autonomous roadway vehicle autonomously without receiving the input from the driver; (Maeta, para[0168], “the alert can initiate an automatic takeover by the remote system, which can be advantageous in cases where there is no human driver, or the human driver is inattentive, careless, and/or suffers a medical issue (e.g. significant difference from normal values of vitals, which can be the case where for example the driver is suffering a heart attack)”) Examiner note: Maeta teaches the autonomous roadway vehicle simulator could operate in the autonomous driving mode without receiving the input from the driver such as in the scenario when the driver is suffering a heart attack.
Maeta does not explicitly teach, but Iagnemma teaches:
A driving simulator for training a driver in driving an autonomous roadway vehicle, comprising (Iagnemma, para[146], “driver training simulators”, and para[01], “ autonomous vehicle”)
one or more input devices corresponding to controls of the autonomous roadway vehicle and configured to receive an input from the driver…; a display; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more input devices and the display, (Iagnemma, para[24], “ The human operator is enabled to provide inputs to the steering, throttle, brake, or other actuators of the vehicle”, and para [138], “a display located in the vehicle”, and para[10], “A computer system 40 located on the AV”)
and responsive to receiving the input from the driver from at least one of the one or more input devices, change the mode of the application from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in which the application is configured to update a state of the simulated roadway vehicle according to inputs from the one or more input devices from the driver, thereby training the driver in driving the autonomous roadway vehicle. (Iagnemma, para[146], “The tele-operator may have the ability to control the AV by directly providing inputs to the steering, throttle, brake and other actuators (for example, in the manner in which driver training simulators function). The tele-operator may have the ability to directly control the trajectory planning process by manually selecting a goal position for the vehicle, or influencing the trajectory to the goal position (by specifying the entire trajectory, or providing waypoints, or by some other method). The transition from autonomous to tele-operation mode”, para [147], “switching the AV from an autonomous mode to a partially or fully manual mode”, and para [129], “ The result of the trajectory planning process is a continuously updated ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta to include these above aforementioned teachings from Iagnemma in order to include a driving simulator for training a driver in driving an autonomous roadway vehicle, one or more input devices corresponding to controls of the autonomous roadway vehicle and configured to receive an input from the driver; a display; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more input devices and the display, receive the input from the driver from at least one of the one or more input devices; and responsive to receiving the input, change the mode of the application from the autonomous mode to a manual mode in which the application is configured to update a state of the simulated roadway vehicle according to inputs from the one or more input devices from the driver, thereby training the driver in driving the autonomous roadway vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prepare drivers of autonomous vehicles for what to do in instances in the real world.
Maeta in view of Iagnemma does not explicitly teach, but Faac teaches:
a housing mimicking a cabin of the … roadway vehicle: (Faac depicts a truck simulator with a housing in the shape of a semi-trailer truck cabin)
one or more input devices …configured to receive an input from the driver positioned in the housing, the one or more input devices being positioned within the housing; (Faac depicts a truck simulator with a housing in the shape of a semi-trailer truck cabin and equipped with the inputs devices such as steering wheel and brake pedals configured to receive an input from the driver positioned in the housing, the one or more input devices being positioned within the housing)
PNG
media_image1.png
970
1803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma to include these above aforementioned teachings from Faac in order to include a housing mimicking a cabin of the roadway vehicle and configured to receive an input from the driver positioned in the housing, the one or more input devices being positioned within the housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve driving safety.
Regarding Claims 2, 13 and 20:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, wherein the one or more input devices comprise a brake pedal, an acceleration pedal, and a steering wheel, and wherein the one or more processors receive the input from the brake pedal, the acceleration pedal, or the steering wheel. (Maeta, para[63], “devices 101 include a steering control , brakes, gears, accelerator pedal ”, para[119], “the controller 1102 produces data usable as a throttle input 1106 and a steering input”)
Regarding Claims 3 and 14:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac,as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, wherein the predetermined path causes the simulated roadway vehicle to drive on a road simulated by the application. (Maeta, para[0149], “simulation 1606 of the planning module 404 can generate a simulated planned trajectory”, para[150],” The simulations 1606, 1608 and 1508 of respective modules can generate corresponding simulated data, including the simulated vehicle state 1614.”)
Regarding Claim 8:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an input from a second input device corresponding to the autonomous mode; (Maeta, para[119], “the controller 1102 produces data usable as a throttle input 1106 and a steering input”)
Maeta does not explicitly teach, but Iagnemma teaches:
and change the mode of the application from the manual mode to the autonomous mode in response to the input. (Iagnemma, para[146], “The tele-operator may have the ability to control the AV by directly providing inputs to the steering, throttle, brake”, para [147], “switching the AV from an autonomous mode to a partially or fully manual mode”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta to include these above aforementioned teachings from Iagnemma in order to include change the mode of the application from the manual mode to the autonomous mode in response to the input. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare drivers of autonomous vehicles for what to do in instances in the real world.
Regarding Claim 10:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta in view of Iagnemma does not explicitly teach, but Faac teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, wherein the housing is in the shape of a semi-trailer truck cabin, wherein the one or more processors are stored within the housing, and wherein the display is a display external to the housing.(Faac depicts a truck simulator with a housing in the shape of a semi-trailer truck cabin, wherein the one or more processors are stored within the housing, and wherein the display is a display external to the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a design option)
PNG
media_image2.png
737
1432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma to include these above aforementioned teachings from Faac in order to include a housing in the shape of a semi-trailer truck cabin, wherein the one or more processors are stored within the housing, and wherein the display is a display external to the housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve driving safety.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeta (US20220068052A1) in view of Iagnemma (US20180113463A1), further in view of Faac (https://www.faac.com/commercial/truck/tt-1000-truck-simulator/) and Nagavalli (US 20210181733 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta teaches:
and wherein the one or more processors execute the application by: detecting the simulated roadway vehicle is at a location of the one or more locations within the simulated environment; (Maeta, para[0126], “a simulating environment for the AV”, and para[0124], “determine if the AV 100 is at a location”)
responsive to detecting the simulated roadway vehicle is at the location within the simulated environment, adjusting the predetermined path; (Maeta, para[0126], “modification of traffic lanes”)
and determining a difference in time between the adjustment to the predetermined path and receipt of the input.( Maeta, para[150], “The original vehicle state 1604 and the simulated vehicle state 1614 can be fed into a comparator 1616, which can make comparisons to identify at least one portion of the time-stamped simulated data that indicates a deviation”)
Maeta in view of Iagnemma does not explicitly teach, but Nagavalli teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, wherein the simulated environment comprises one or more fault injections located at one or more locations within the simulated environment, (Nagavalli, para[78], “include a fault-injection subsystem… in one or more different types of test environments, such as … simulated environments”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma to include these above aforementioned teachings from Nagavalli in order to include wherein the simulated environment comprises one or more fault injections located at one or more locations within the simulated environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “operations are performed in a safe manner”. (Nagavalli, Description)
Regarding Claims 6 and 17:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, Nagavalli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Maeta teaches,
The driving simulator of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors adjust the predetermined path by simulating a sudden braking operation, adjusting a position of a steering wheel from a current position of the steering wheel, performing a lane change without aligning into the changed lane, or causing the simulated roadway vehicle to travel past a simulated stop line. (Maeta, para[0120],” adjusting the inputs provided to the … steering”, and para[0119], “steering input 1108 represents a steering angle”)
Regarding Claims 7 and 18:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors execute the application by: …while executing the application (Maeta, para[126], “a simulator) that can simulate operations of the AV 100 based on data received from the AV”)
Maeta in view of Iagnemma does not explicitly teach, but Nagavalli teaches:
receiving… an identification of a fault injection from a client device or from a user interface; (Nagavalli, para[42], “fault marker 201 identifies a spot … where the AV's fault-injection subsystem injected a first fault”, and para[82], “provides a fault-injection user interface”)
responsive to receiving the identification of the fault injection, determining an adjustment in the predetermined path based on the identification of the fault injection; and adjusting the predetermined path according to the determined adjustment.( Nagavalli, Fig.1 and para[34], “first point in time T0, which is prior to AV 101 being exposed to a theoretical fault. At a second point in time T1, top down view 110 shows AV 101 veering across centerline 102 of the two-lane road, which is a result of AV 101 being exposed to a theoretical control fault affecting the AV's steering. At a third point in time T2, top down view 120 shows AV 101 being brought back within centerline 102 and shoulder line 103, which is a result of a response mechanism of AV 101 (e.g., an automated response system or safety driver) detecting and reacting to the control fault.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
698
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma to include these above aforementioned teachings from Nagavalli in order to include receiving, while executing the application, an identification of a fault injection from a client device or via a user interface; responsive to receiving the identification of the fault injection, determining an adjustment in the predetermined path based on the identification of the fault injection; and adjusting the predetermined path according to the determined adjustment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “operations are performed in a safe manner”. (Nagavalli, Description)
Claim(s) 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeta (US20220068052A1) in view of Iagnemma (US20180113463A1), further in view of Faac (https://www.faac.com/commercial/truck/tt-1000-truck-simulator/), Nagavalli (US 20210181733 A1) and Kumar (US 20190074006 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, Nagavalli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, Nagavalli does not explicitly teach, but Kumar teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: update a profile according to the difference in time.( Kumar, para[44], “perform an updated of a user profile based on differences”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Nagavalli to include these above aforementioned teachings from Kumar in order to include wherein the simulated environment comprises one or more fault injections located at one or more locations within the simulated environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve driving safety.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeta (US20220068052A1) in view of Iagnemma (US20180113463A1), further in view of Faac (https://www.faac.com/commercial/truck/tt-1000-truck-simulator/) and Shafaat (US20090153343A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an input from a second input device; (Maeta, para[119], “the controller 1102 produces data usable as a throttle input 1106 and a steering input”)
simulated roadway vehicle… on a simulated road within the simulated environment (Maeta, para[0149], “simulation 1606 of the planning module 404 can generate a simulated planned trajectory”, para[150],” The simulations 1606, 1608 and 1508 of respective modules can generate corresponding simulated data, including the simulated vehicle state 1614.”)
Maeta does not explicitly teach, but Shafaat teaches:
corresponding to the autonomous mode (Shafaat, para[43], “engaged in an automatic …mode”)
determine the … vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location; (Shafaat, para[42],” the AV (i) being located within a threshold distance from a particular geographic location”)
and change the mode of the application from the manual mode to the autonomous mode in response to the input and the determination that the… roadway vehicle is within the predetermined distance of the location on the … road. (Shafaat, para[43], “engaged in an automatic … mode”, and claim 11, “providing control input… based on said control input”, and para[42],” the AV (i) being located within a threshold distance from a particular geographic location”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma to include these above aforementioned teachings from Shafaat in order to include determine the simulated vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a location on a simulated road within the simulated environment; and change the mode of the application from the manual mode to the autonomous mode in response to the input and the determination that the simulated vehicle is within the predetermined distance of the position on the simulated road. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “meet stringent safety, efficiency, and performance requirements”. (Shafaat, Description)
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeta (US20220068052A1) in view of Iagnemma (US20180113463A1), further in view of Faac (https://www.faac.com/commercial/truck/tt-1000-truck-simulator/) and KO (US 20200047766 A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maeta in view of Iagnemma, Faac,does not explicitly teach, but KO teaches:
The driving simulator of claim 1, further comprising: a speaker, the speaker emitting audio indicating whether the application is in the autonomous mode or the manual mode.(KO, para[25], “the autonomous/manual driving mode controller 103 notifies the driver whether the current driving mode is autonomous or manual using an indicator and speaker”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma to include these above aforementioned teachings from KO in order to include a speaker, the speaker emitting audio indicating whether the application is in the autonomous mode or the manual mode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve driving safety.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 1, 12, 19 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches or suggests the newly added limitations of “a housing mimicking a cabin of the autonomous roadway vehicle, one or more input devices corresponding to controls of the autonomous roadway vehicle and configured to receive an input from the driver positioned in the cabin, the one or more input devices being positioned within the housing, and, responsive to receiving the input from the driver from at least one of the one or more input devices” of the independent claims 1, 12, 19.
In response of B). Examiner respectively disagrees. Iagnemma teaches a driving simulator for training a driver in driving an autonomous roadway vehicle in para[146], “driver training simulators”, and para[01], “ autonomous vehicle”. Furthermore, Iagnemma teaches one or more input devices corresponding to controls of the autonomous roadway vehicle and configured to receive an input from the driver in para[24], “ The human operator is enabled to provide inputs to the steering, throttle, brake, or other actuators of the vehicle”. Faac depicts a truck simulator with a housing in the shape of a semi-trailer truck cabin and equipped with the inputs devices such as steering wheel and brake pedals configured to receive an input from the driver positioned in the housing, the one or more input devices being positioned within the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous vehicle simulator of Maeta in view of Iagnemma to include these above aforementioned teachings from Faac in order to include a housing mimicking a cabin of the roadway vehicle and configured to receive an input from the driver positioned in the housing, the one or more input devices being positioned within the housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve driving safety. Accordingly, the amendments to claim 1 do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 103.
PNG
media_image1.png
970
1803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667