DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is drafted in response to RCE filed 04/21/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected as cited below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Specification Objection
Objection to the abstract of the invention is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammar – “… a comparison results …” should be “… a comparison result …”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Typo underlined - “... display device (30) dis[lays …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 7:
↓ Applicant states, on page 7 of response ↓
“Compared with Claims 1 and 7 the Naouri or Sucan references fail to teach:
an emulation device located at distance from the vehicle.
Applicant notes that Sucan describes a system of remote assistance (par. [0081]) for vehicle and vehicle passengers. Therefore, in this case the remote control intervenes in case of problems.
If one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention tries to solve the problem of security and read Sucan, he simply understands that it is possible to help the driver remotely. Indeed, the user of the device of claim 1 does not have the control of the vehicle but he just emulates the driving.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above statement. Applicant specification, page 4, lines 22-23 and page 5, lines 1-7, describes an “emulation device” as a device comprising connection means (e.g. web connection), display means (screen or similar), and control means. Sucan teaches a remote computing device 404 which is analogous to the claimed emulation device. The remote computing device 404 contains all of the required elements of the claimed “emulation device”, see Sucan ¶ [0083] and ¶ [0087], and may operate at a distance from the vehicle, see Sucan ¶ [0084].
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:
Emulation apparatus
Control device
Shooting device
Sensor device
Transmission device
Display device
Control apparatus
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The above claim limitations have structure described in specification ¶ [0026], [0027], [0029], [0033], [0032], and [0036].
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naouri in view of Sucan.
Naouri and Sucan were cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Naouri teaches:
An emulation apparatus (1) (See Fig. 2) for a vehicle (5) (At least ¶ [0005] “a real vehicle”) driven by a driver (At least ¶ [0006] “the actual driver”), the vehicle (5) including a control device (50) (At least ¶ [0049] “vehicle control components”), said emulation apparatus (1) comprising:
a shooting device (20) adapted to film the view of said driver of said vehicle (5), the shooting device (20) generates a shooting output (At least ¶ [0004] “a video camera unit (a.k.a. CAM) (10)”),
a sensor device (21) connected to the vehicle, the sensor device (21) determines instantaneous driving conditions of said vehicle (5) and generates a condition output of the vehicle (At least ¶ [0047] “An IMU (20) is used to calculate the instantaneous linear and angular acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle as well as its velocity”),
a control apparatus (22) (At least ¶ [0036] “a processing unit a.k.a. PU (40)”) comprising a transmission device (23) (At least ¶ [0038] “a power and data link cable (e.g., USB cable).”) to receive said shooting output and said condition output,
at least one emulation device (3) (At least ¶ [0004] “one or more user interface(s) (a.k.a. UI) (30)”) located at a distance from said vehicle, each one of the emulation devices (3) is remotely connected to said control apparatus (22) and comprises:
a display device (30) to show said shooting output (At least ¶ [0004] “one or more monitor(s) (50)”),
a control device (31) (At least ¶ [0060] “the user interface is a simulator kit made of a simulator steering wheel attached to a rotary encoder, a simulator gas pedal, and a simulator brake pedal, which are both equipped with position sensors. In such an embodiment, a user interface (30) is a replication of the car driving station. This simulator kit is made of several components:”) configured to emulate the driving of said control device (50) (At least ¶ [0059] “Each passenger is equipped with his/her own user interface (30). It is used by the passenger for mimicking the driving actions currently taken by the car driver. For doing so, the passengers refer to the scenes ahead of the vehicle which are displayed on the monitor(s) (50) located in front of them.”), the control device (31) generates a practicing control output that allows a practitioner to emulate the driving of said vehicle (5) (At least [0092] “simulated motion parameters”),
said control apparatus (22) compares said condition output of said vehicle (5) with said practicing control output (At least ¶ [0015] “estimating positions of a steering wheel, an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal of the vehicle from the inertial data obtained from said inertial measurement unit and comparing the estimated positions to the positions of a simulated steering wheel, a simulated accelerator pedal and a simulated brake pedal being controlled using said user interface, wherein said processor is configured to compute said delta based on said comparison”) and displays on said display device (30) a comparison results between said outputs (At least ¶ [0014] “said monitor being configured to display said processed videos, wherein said processor is coupled to a user interface, said user interface being configured to enable simulating control of a movement of the actual vehicle based on processed videos displayed by the monitor, wherein said processed videos reflect a delta between data (DREAL) representative of controls of the control components of the actual vehicle for controlling the actual movement of the vehicle, and data representative of controls of said user interface for simulating control of the movement of the actual vehicle (DSIM) … the driving simulator is, configured to perform at least one of … inserting indicators on the videos of scenes (based in particular on said delta).” And ¶ [0006] “If the user provides commands which differ (“delta”) from the real commands provided by the actual driver of the vehicle, the simulated vehicle should see a scene which is different from the real time video captured from the actual vehicle.” And ¶ [0015] “According to some embodiments, said processor is configured to insert visual and/or audio indicators in the videos being displayed on said monitor based on accuracy of the simulation of the control of the movement of the vehicle.”).
While Naouri discloses at least one emulation device (At least ¶ [0004] “one or more user interface(s) (a.k.a. UI) (30)”), it does not explicitly disclose that the at least one emulation device is located at a distance from said vehicle, nor each one of the emulation devices (3) is remotely connected to said control apparatus (22).
However, Sucan, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
at least one emulation device (3) (At least ¶ [0083] “Remote computing device 404”) located at a distance from said vehicle (At least ¶ [0084] “remote computing device 404 may have a remote position from vehicle 402, such as operating inside a physical building”), each one of the emulation devices (3) is remotely connected to said control apparatus (22) (At least ¶ [0087] “Server 406 may be configured to wirelessly communicate with remote computing device 404 and vehicle 402 via network 408 (or perhaps directly with remote computing device 404 and/or vehicle 402). As such, server 406 may represent any computing device configured to receive, store, determine, and/or send information relating to vehicle 402 and the remote assistance thereof.” The server 406 is analogous to the claimed control apparatus (22).).
and
wherein the emulation device is located at a distance from the vehicle (At least ¶ [0084] “remote computing device 404 may have a remote position from vehicle 402, such as operating inside a physical building”).
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 Naouri with Sucan. This modification would have been obvious as both Naouri and Sucan contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle control) and one of ordinary skill in the art would want to market the Naouri system to as broad of a base as possible. They may be motivated to introduce the Sucan remote computing device to the Naouri system in order to increase the base of users of the system. For example, a child located many miles from a parent may be able to emulate the semi-truck controls of said parent. This may increase the profitability of the Naouri system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Naouri and Sucan teaches The emulation apparatus (1) according to claim 1, Naouri further teaches wherein said transmission device (30) transmits said shooting output and said condition output in real time, and said display device (30) dis[lays said comparison between said outputs in real time (At least ¶ [0005] “a real time captured video is turned into an interactive experience such as a driving simulator. According to some embodiments, the real time video is captured from a camera located in a real vehicle, and processed into a real time driving simulator which is output to a display visible by a user.” And ¶ [0049] “The motion parameters are continuously injected into the PU (40) via a power and data link cable (e.g. a USB cable) for estimating the position of the vehicle steering wheel and of the gas/brakes pedals.”) and ¶ [0008] “it is possible to create a driving simulation which provides a feeling to the user of the driving simulator that he is currently driving the actual vehicle, by providing a processed video in real time or quasi real time.” And ¶ [0187] “a mix of real elements (from the real video), real elements which have been processed (such as obstacles, elements, other vehicles which can be displaced, replicated, deleted etc.) and purely simulated elements can be all at the same time be included in a given processed video, in real time or quasi real time.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Naouri and Sucan teaches The emulation apparatus (1) according to claim 1, Naouri further teaches wherein said control apparatus (22) determines a delay of said transmission of said shooting output to allow the simultaneous transmission of said shooting output (At least ¶ [0143] “According to some embodiments, the processing can be performed in real time or in quasi real time (with a delay below a threshold).”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Naouri and Sucan teaches The emulation apparatus (1) according to claim 1, Naouri further teaches wherein a plurality of emulation devices (3) are present for a plurality of practitioners (At least ¶ [0184] “the first driving simulator can receive the data of the second driving simulator and can process the first processed video to display the second simulated vehicle within the first processed video.” And ¶ [0185] “This can be applied to N driving simulators” and FIG. 8 which shows Driving simulators 1, 2, and 3. N driving simulators implies N users (i.e. practitioners).).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Naouri and Sucan teaches The emulation apparatus (1) according to claim 1, Naouri further teaches wherein said sensor device (21) comprise accelerometers connected to said vehicle (At least ¶ [0047] “An IMU (20) is used to calculate the instantaneous linear and angular acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle as well as its velocity” and ¶ [0051] “a 3-axis MEMS accelerometer”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Naouri and Sucan teaches The emulation apparatus (1) according to claim 1, Naouri further teaches wherein said sensor device (21) are directly connected to said control device (50) of said vehicle (5) (At least ¶ [0050] “the IMU (20) can be replaced by an angle sensor fixed on the vehicle steering wheel and by position sensors fixed on the gas/brakes pedals of the vehicle.” And ¶ [0015] “a vehicle control component position system arranged on the vehicle and coupled to said processor, said vehicle control component position system providing output related to position of control components of the vehicle … said vehicle control component position system comprises an inertial measurement unit that obtains inertial data about the vehicle, the position of the control components being derived or estimated from the inertial data by said processor, the inertial data including one or more of velocity of the vehicle and acceleration of the vehicle.”).
Claim 7 recites a method (i.e. procedure) detailed in the apparatus presented in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 8 recites a method (i.e. procedure) detailed in the apparatus presented in claim 2, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 9 recites a method (i.e. procedure) detailed in the apparatus presented in claim 3, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 10 recites a method (i.e. procedure) detailed in the apparatus presented in claim 4, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights