DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show text labels for the numerals in figures 1-6, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Correction is therefore required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A computer method of evaluation”, where “evaluation” is in the wrong verb tense; it should be a “A computer method of evaluating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the plurality of parameters comprises: one or more of: a total eyes off UI time metric, a task completion time, a subtask completion time, or a performance score; and outputting an indication for the simulated environment UI.”, where there should not be a colon after comprises. Instead, the claim should read: “wherein the plurality of parameters comprises one or more of: a total eyes off UI time metric, a task completion time, a subtask completion time, or a performance score; and outputting an indication for the simulated environment UI.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
A computer-implemented method of evaluation a control interface based on user interaction, comprising:
displaying, on a display, an actual environment user interface (UI) to a user, wherein the actual environment UI is a test UI of a vehicle;
receiving, from one or more sensors, signals indicative of a first user interaction with the displayed actual environment UI;
calculating a plurality of parameters of the first user interaction with the actual environment UI based on the received signals indicative of the first user interaction, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises one or more of: a total eyes off road time metric, a task completion time, a subtask completion time, or a performance score; and
outputting an indication for the actual user interface.
The limitation of calculating a plurality of parameters is an abstract idea because they are directed to mathematical process/algorithm. No supporting instructions are recited beyond “calculating” that it represents no more than mere abstract mathematical process.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception:
A computer-implemented method of evaluation a control interface based on user interaction, comprising: (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
displaying, on a display, an actual environment user interface (UI) to a user, wherein the actual environment UI is a test UI of a vehicle (see MPEP 2106.05(g), example iii and general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
receiving, from one or more sensors, signals indicative of a first user interaction with the displayed actual environment UI; (mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises one or more of: a total eyes off road time metric, a task completion time, a subtask completion time, or a performance score; and (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(f) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(h) and MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 1 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-5 recite limitations that fall under Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), specifically generally linking (vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);)
Dependent Claims 6-10 recite limitations that fall under Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (see MPEP 2105.05(g)).
Claims 11-18 are directed to a method and recite similar limitations as claims 1-10. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi (US 20190213429 A1), in view of Salter (US 20230088122 A1), in further view of Sayedahmad (WO 2021229261 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sicconi teaches receiving, from one or more sensors, signals indicative of a first user interaction with the displayed actual environment UI ([0070], Touching Mobile Phone screen on cradle Reading Text on Mobile Phone (hand-held) Touching Screen on Mobile Phone (hand-held)), calculating a plurality of parameters of the first user interaction with the actual environment UI based on the received signals indicative of the first user interaction, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises one or more of: a total eyes off road time metric, a task completion time, a subtask completion time, or a performance score; (since the limitation is recited in the alternative, the following from Sicconi recites a performance score: ([006]; The present invention represents an evolution of UBI telematics systems by combining analytics of telematics data, driver observed behavior and performance, to compute driving risk scores, Figure 5 element 502).
Sicconi does not teach A computer-implemented method of evaluation a control interface based on user interaction, comprising: displaying, on a display, an actual environment user interface (UI) to a user, wherein the actual environment UI is a test UI of a vehicle. He also does not teach outputting an indication for the actual user interface.
However, Salter teaches A computer-implemented method of evaluation a control interface based on user interaction, comprising: displaying, on a display, an actual environment user interface (UI) to a user), wherein the actual environment UI is a test UI of a vehicle (Figures 3 and 4) and Sayedahmad teaches outputting an indication for the actual user interface. (Pages 4-5: When the car approaches the intersection that without signal, it warns and draws the intersection in its correct direction and indicates the priorities of the intersection streets in colors, and mentions its names, and the location of the car, and displays warning messages in the display, and its display is according to the forms used in the traffic system previously, and war when near to pump or drilling or street turnover, or pedestrian crossing point, a checkpoint, or a narrow road, or anything that dangerous on the road that needs to draw the driver’s attention, and that is accompanied if necessary on a display of the situation, written text or voice message).
Sicconi teaches displaying information to a user (if the safety margin is inadequate 519 warning alerts are 500 are sent to the driver immediately). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to accomplish delivery of the “alerts 500” of Sicconi (see Sicconi [0056]) by using the screens of Salter, as Salter [0028] notes this is a “known” way of “providing information to the user”, and also to modify Sicconi’s analysis of screen based distraction (see Sicconi [0075]) to include the screen interface disclosed by Salter, because as noted above, Salter’s screen is a known element in vehicles and used for displaying information to the user. And to further combined the above teachings with the “display warning messages in the display… to draw the driver’s attention” of Sayedahmad.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Sicconi further discloses the following:
wherein the indication comprises a performance indication of a feature of the actual environment UI (Figure 10: Elements 1022-1027 and 1030-1032 describe monitoring driver attention and providing a warning with light colors and spoken alarm messages in response to marginal or insufficient attention.)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Sicconi further discloses the following:
wherein the indication comprises a recommendation. (Figure 10: Elements 1022-1027 and 1030-1032 describe monitoring driver attention and providing a warning with light colors and spoken alarm messages in response to marginal or insufficient attention.)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Sicconi and Salter above discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Sicconi further discloses the following:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are integrated into one or more of: eye tracking glasses, microphone, a user-mountable camera, a seat-mountable camera, or a display-mountable camera. ([0015] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a virtual co- pilot method includes: an image processor receiving images from a camera facing a driver; the image processor receiving scans from an infrared scanner facing the driver; road facing camera a speech engine receiving speech from the driver using a microphone; and biosensors providing biometric data from the driver to a processing unit)
Regarding Claim 7, Sicconi and Salter above disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Sicconi further discloses the following:
further comprising triangulating, using the signals, an eye position of the user; and determining the first user interaction based on the triangulation, wherein the first user interaction is a visual interaction. ([0051] Still referring to Figure 3 monitors a driver 305 and the driver's behavior 307. The invention observes the face and eyes orientation using a camera 308 pointed at the driver. Direction of driver's attention is classified by rotation angles (yaw, pitch, roll and eyes lateral movements) to analyze the driver's attention, [0070], Touching Mobile Phone screen on cradle Reading Text on Mobile Phone (hand-held) Touching Screen on Mobile Phone (hand-held)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi (US 20190213429 A1), in view of Salter (US 20230088122 A1), in view of Sayedahmed (WO 2021229261 A1), in further view of Dominguez (US 20240330021 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Dominguez further discloses the following:
Wherein the recommendation comprises a UI feature replacement, a UI feature elimination, a subtask modification, or a combination thereof. ([0026] The registry of UI components can likewise be modified to remove features from the contextual UI component (e.g., by removing a reference to an MFE from the registry), or to rearrange (e.g., reorder) the UI components that make up the contextual UI component. Since embodiments described herein make it much easier to add, remove or rearrange features of the contextual UI component, such embodiments also make it easier to generate different versions of the contextual UI component for testing, such as for A/B testing.)
Using Sicconi’s teachings of displaying information to a user (if the safety margin is inadequate 519 warning alerts are 500 are sent to the driver immediately), the screens of Salter, as Salter [0028] notes this is a “known” way of “providing information to the user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to combine the above references with removing UI features from Dominguez (add, remove or rearrange features of the contextual UI component).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi (US 20190213429 A1), in view of Salter (US 20230088122 A1), in view of Sayedahmed (WO 2021229261 A1), in further view of Mondal (US 20200242388 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Mondal further discloses the following:
further comprising outputting a guidance to the user to position the one or more sensors so that the one or more sensors are configured to capture the first user interaction with the displayed actual environment UI. ([0071] While the instruction 124 instructs the user to hold the computing device 102 steady, the shadow detector 101 may determine a presence of the shadow 120, and may automatically activate the light source 114 to eliminate or reduce the presence of the shadow 120. In other examples, the instruction 124 may be updated to instruct the user to reposition the camera view 116 so as to eliminate the shadow 120. In other example implementations, the solution manager 154 may store metadata characterizing the shadow 120, for use in later processing of the captured image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to combine modified Sicconi-Salter-Sayedahmad with Mondal’s teaching of repositioning a camera (With frequent use of mobile device cameras to capture digital images, inclusion of unwanted shadows is particularly frequent and problematic. For example, users often position their mobile devices above a document to capture an image of the document. In these and similar contexts, the positioning of the mobile device often causes a shadow across the document being captured.) solving any issue of image quality such as camera lighting, angles, or focus. (Mondal, 0071)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi (US 20190213429 A1), in view of Salter (US 20230088122 A1), in view of Sayedahmed (WO 2021229261 A1), in further view of Azzopardi (WO 2010029040 A2).
Regarding Claim 8, Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Azzopardi further discloses the following:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise a plurality of cameras, such that the method further comprises capturing a light interval, with the plurality of cameras, from a periodic light source; and synchronizing the plurality of cameras based on the captured light interval ([0055] Automative applications are among the first areas that are likely to benefit most from this invention. Up to 20 machine-vision cameras will be included in future vehicles. In particular, there is a steeply growing interest in the utilization of multiple cameras within vehicles to augment vehicle HMI for safety, comfort, and security, [0034] the video combiner 140 captures the video data from each video bus 161, 162, 163 and 164 of each video source 151, 152, 153, and 154 and bundles it together with a single set of timing signals 173 to produce a pseudo-multi-tap video signal on the multi-tap video bus 130. This is sent to the Frame Grabber 120 which interprets it a normal multi-tap video signal which is ultimately transferred to the host computer 110. The video data received in this form has an implicit guarantee of synchronization.)
Sicconi teaches a camera capturing images (an image processor receiving images from a camera facing a driver). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to combine the above teachings of modified Sicconi-Salter-Sayedahmad with Azzopardi’s teachings of using multiple cameras (the utilization of multiple cameras within vehicles) to achieve synchronization (the video data received in this form has an implicit guarantee of synchronization). (Azzopardi, 0055, 0034)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi (US 20190213429 A1), in view of Salter (US 20230088122 A1), in view of Sayedahmed (WO 2021229261 A1), in further view of Weller (US 20170021946 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Weller further discloses:
wherein the displayed actual environment UI comprises a task UI, such the method comprises displaying a task for completion on the task UI ([0037] In step 610, a user 180 selects a desired task on display 425 using input 440, e.g., from a list of predefined tasks available with the UAS system 110 (or its unmanned vehicles).)
Using Sicconi’s teachings of displaying information to a user (if the safety margin is inadequate 519 warning alerts are 500 are sent to the driver immediately), the screens of Salter, as Salter [0028] notes this is a “known” way of “providing information to the user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to combine the above references with the task display of Weller (task on display 424 using input… from a list of predefined tasks).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi (US 20190213429 A1), in view of Salter (US 20230088122 A1), in view of Sayedahmed (WO 2021229261 A1), in further view of Amigo (US 20110153367 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Amigo further discloses:
receiving a user input of a make and model of the vehicle that is associated with the test UI; and updating the indication based on the user input. ([0072] In step 802, the system presents a graphical user interface for a user to input vehicle information, such as a vehicle make or model identification.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Amigo’s teachings of presenting a user interface to get make and model input from a user with modified Sicconi-Salter-Sayedahmad teachings of using a test vehicle environment because it would be common for the environment to have details concerning itself. Make and model of a vehicle are common pieces of information and acquiring the information through user input is established in the art.
Claims 11-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi, in view of Salter, in further view of Sayedahmad for the same reasons above because they are substantially similar to claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sicconi (US 20190213429 A1), in view of Salter (US 20230088122 A1), in view of Sayedahmed WO 2021229261 A1), in view of Weller (US 20170021946 A1), in further view of Madison (US 20210192968 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Weller and Madison further disclose:
wherein the displayed simulated environment UI comprises a distraction UI (Madison: [0089] The display 400 may further include a map 408 of the roads 404 rendered in the virtual reality driving simulation. In some embodiments, the map 408 may replicate the screen of a GPS device built-into the vehicle 401. The display 400 may also include an interactive radio 410, a fuel indicator 412, and/or a speedometer 414.) and a task UI (Weller: [0037] In step 610, a user 180 selects a desired task on display 425 using input 440, e.g., from a list of predefined tasks available with the UAS system 110 (or its unmanned vehicles).), such the method comprises displaying a task for completion on the task UI while displaying a distraction on the distraction UI
Using Sicconi’s teachings of displaying information to a user (if the safety margin is inadequate 519 warning alerts are 500 are sent to the driver immediately), the screens of Salter, as Salter [0028] notes this is a “known” way of “providing information to the user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to combine the above references with Madison using a display to simulate driving conditions (the display 400 may be rendered during the instructional lesson portion of the virtual reality driving simulation, display 400 may be superimposed with instructional text (not illustrated) and/or visual cues 420 (e.g., exogenous cues and/or endogenous cues)) and Weller using a task UI (UI ([0037] In step 610, a user 180 selects a desired task on display 425 using input 440, e.g., from a list of predefined tasks available with the UAS system 110 (or its unmanned vehicles)).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Madison further discloses:
wherein the distraction UI is configured to display one or more of: simulated weather conditions, simulated road conditions, or simulated location conditions. ([0090] As mentioned above, the display 400 may be rendered during the instructional lesson portion of the virtual reality driving simulation. As such, the display 400 may be superimposed with instructional text (not illustrated) and/or visual cues 420 (e.g., exogenous cues and/or endogenous cues) for teaching driving-related rules and/or skills to the user., Figure 4: element 402, 403, 404, 406).
Using Sicconi’s teachings of displaying information to a user (if the safety margin is inadequate 519 warning alerts are 500 are sent to the driver immediately), the screens of Salter, as Salter [0028] notes this is a “known” way of “providing information to the user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to combine the above references with Madison teaching displaying simulated driving conditions (Figure 4: element 402, 403, 404, 406).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Sicconi, Salter, and Sayedahmed above discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Sicconi further discloses the following:
wherein the total eyes off UI metric is a total eye off task UI metric or a total eye on distraction UI metric. ([006]; The present invention represents an evolution of UBI telematics systems by combining analytics of telematics data, driver observed behavior and performance, to compute driving risk scores, Figure 5 element 502).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-5:00pm) 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)272-3676. 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.
/HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights