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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 4, “on the course” should read “on the predetermined course” to more clearly correspond with the limitation recitation in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a speed selection instruction receiving unit” in claim 1, line 3; “a display control unit” in claim 1, line 5; “a location-pointing action accepting unit” in claim 1, line 9; “a characteristic measurement unit” in claim 1, line 11; and “a self-evaluation receiving unit” in claim 5, line 4.
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.
“a speed selection instruction receiving unit” – Interpreted as a software module stored in the storage unit and executed by the control unit/processor, configured to receive a user input/selection of a speed for the simulation, per paragraphs 0035, 0043.
“a display control unit” - Interpreted as a software module stored in the storage unit and executed by the control unit/processor, configured to control the display to display the simulated driving scene and determine when the display/scene is completed, per paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0044.
“a location-pointing action accepting unit” – Interpreted as a software module stored in the storage unit and executed by the control unit/processor, configured to receive a user input/selection of a location in the simulation via a touch interaction or mouse click operation, per paragraphs 0035, 0039, 0045, 0113.
“a characteristic measurement unit” – Interpreted as a software module stored in the storage unit and executed by the control unit/processor, configured to perform the various processes for determining user/examinee characteristics including risk based on the received user inputs during the simulated driving image, per paragraphs 0031, 0035, 0036.
“a self-evaluation receiving unit” – Interpreted as a software module stored in the storage unit and executed by the control unit/processor, configured to provide a display of a user interface and receive a user’s self-evaluation of hazard perception, per paragraphs 0035, 0041-0042.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the field of vision of a human moving" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the indication results" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the scene" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the target object perception ability" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the self-control ability" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the self-evaluation ability" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the characteristic" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “the characteristics” while this limitation appears to be reciting one of/a characteristic. It is recommended to amend the limitation to “a self-evaluation characteristic of the characteristics” or similar.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the risk of the examinee" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the field of vision of a human moving" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the indication results" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the scene" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the field of vision of a human moving" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the indication results" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the scene" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites “further comprising the image display unit”, but claim 1 already recites the device comprising “a display control unit that executes a speed-variable display process to display on an image display unit”. Therefore, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends as it merely recites an already recited limitation with providing further limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 17 recites a computer program product without any structural recitations. As such, the computer program product could include a transitory media including forms of signal transmission, such as propagating electrical signals or carrier waves which is enumerated by the courts as non-statutory subject matter (see in re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Further, without any structural recitation, a computer program does not fall within the groupings of a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. The applicant is required to provide structural recitations to amount to eligible subject matter (a manufacture) such as the program being stored on a computer-readable medium and limiting the computer readable medium to only non-transitory embodiments. For this reason, the applicant is suggested to amend the claim to recite the computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium for execution by the computer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 16, and 171 recite a machine, a process, and a computer program product for performing the process, the process including the steps of selecting a moving speed by the examinee; accepting a location-pointing action performed by the examinee to point to a specific location in the simulated moving image; and measuring the characteristics based on the indication results correlating with whether the location-pointing action correctly pointed to the location of the target object at a specific time when the scene including each target object in the simulated moving image is displayed in the speed-variable display process and on the content of the speed selection instruction. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are selecting a moving speed by the examinee, accepting a location-point action/selection performed by the examinee, and measuring characteristics of the examinee based on results of whether a pointing action correctly pointed to a target object at a specific time. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (measuring the characteristics), judgement (selecting a moving speed), observation (accepting a location-pointing action)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (selecting a moving speed; accepting a location pointing action; and measuring the characteristics). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 16, and 17 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a speed selection instruction receiving unit [claim 1]; a display control unit [claim 1]; a location-pointing action accepting unit [claim 1]; a characteristic measurement unit [claim 1] and the steps of receiving a speed selection instruction; executing a speed-variable display process to display on an image display unit a simulated moving image, which is a moving image simulating the field of vision of a human moving along a predetermined course and including at least one target object in such a manner that the moving speed is set in accordance with the speed selection instruction; and outputting characteristic information representing the measurement results of the characteristics. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely displaying the results of the process (outputting), data gathering/receiving an input, and displaying a moving image on a display unit. The other additional elements of the various software units and the step of executing the display process are generic computer components/instructions for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 0129 of the specification states the information processing device may be any other types of computers including PCs, smartphones, tablet terminals, or the like. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of the various software units and an image display unit used to perform the process are generic computing components/instructions used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 16, and 17 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-15 are dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 recite further abstract ideas including measuring the characteristics based on the indication results (evaluation MP), receiving a self-evaluation of the indication results (CMOHA), measuring the characteristics based on the self-evaluation (evaluation MP), determining the self-evaluation ability of the examinee (evaluation MP), determining the risk of the examinee (evaluation MP), and measuring the risk due to a visual field defect and cognitive function (evaluation MP). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including defining data being manipulated such as the data included in the characteristics (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and displaying content. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 3, 7, and 11 recite further insignificant extra-solution activities including executing processes to display images, the order of steps, and receiving inputs. With regard to the order of steps, the limitations have been considered as a whole and as an order combination and the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually as the order does not provide a practical application or significantly more as they do not result in unexpected results or benefits. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 4 and 13 recite clarification of the types of data used/comprising the characteristics and the simulated moving image. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 14 and 15 recited further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as the limitations are further reciting a generic display unit/device which under its broadest reasonable interpretation is any known computing display such as a monitor, projector, or LCD (Paragraphs 0003, 0129). Therefore, the limitations are further generic computing components/devices used to apply the judicial exceptions. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-15 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harkness (US PGPub 20160163217) in view of Faubert et al. (US 10,743,807), hereinafter referred to Faubert.
With regard to claims 1, 16, and 17, Harkness teaches an information processing device [claim 1] (Abstract; Paragraphs 0049-0050, 0192; “computing device”), an information processing method [claim 16] (Abstract; Paragraphs 0031, 0192; “method”; “a process”), and a computer program [claim 17] (Paragraphs 0015, 0192; “a non-transitory computing device readable medium”) for measuring characteristics of an examinee when the examinee moves (Paragraphs 0033-0034 teach the system and method evaluate driver/examinee behaviors and measure performance (characteristics) while driving (moving)), comprising:
a display control unit that executes a speed-variable display process to display on an image display unit a simulated moving image (Abstract; Paragraphs 0042, 0049, 0053, 0118 teach the system includes presenting driving simulations of a vehicle in motion (simulated moving image) including simulations wherein the speed of the vehicle is adjusted (speed-variable)), which is a moving image simulating the field of vision of a human moving along a predetermined course and including at least one target object in such a manner that the moving speed is set in accordance with the speed selection instruction (Paragraphs 0049-0050, 0118, 0147 teach the simulations can be for driving scenarios including prerecorded scenarios (predetermined course) thereby simulating the view of a driver while driving (field of vision) and wherein a driver can adjust the speed of the vehicle thereby “setting” a moving speed and inputting a speed (speed selection));
a location-pointing action accepting unit that accepts a location-pointing action performed by the examinee to point to a specific location in the simulated moving image (Paragraphs 0098-0099, 0108, 0127 teach the scenario can include a visual awareness activity in which a trainee is tasked with clicking (location pointing action) on the sections of the display containing hazards or clues of potential hazards or possible change); and
a characteristic measurement unit that measures the characteristics based on the indication results correlating with whether the location-pointing action correctly pointed to the location of the target object at a specific time when the scene including each target object in the simulated moving image is displayed in the speed-variable display process and on the content of the speed selection instruction (Paragraphs 0107-0109, 0126-0128, 0189 teach the system can evaluate user performance including determining a number of missed hazards or clues and each scenario/activity can be scored to determine a user’s crash-avoidance skill with regard to the simulations wherein the user’s performance in the visual awareness and hazard recognition would be based on the correct clicking (pointing actions) based on selecting the correct areas of the simulation including the hazards (target objects)), and outputs characteristic information representing the measurement results of the characteristics (Paragraphs 0109, 0128, 0188-0190 teach the system can display the results of an activity or the user’s overall performance or score).
Harkness may not explicitly teach a speed selection instruction receiving unit that receives a speed selection instruction for selecting a moving speed by the examinee. However, Faubert teaches a system and method for determining a perceptual-cognitive signature of a subject when performing a task correlating to abilities such as driving a car wherein a user is tested by presenting a plurality of objects moving on a display for a predetermined duration as part of a trial wherein the method can include a series of trails wherein the objects can have a fixed preset speed or a variable speed based on the parameters/settings of each trial (Col 1, lines 36-41; Col 4, lines 5-31; Col 8, lines 15-62).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harkness to incorporate the teachings of Faubert by incorporating the technique of setting a fixed or variable speed for target objects of Faubert for the simulations of Harkness, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and method for testing user visual perception of target objects such as during driving. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harkness by coding the system to include setting a speed variable for the simulation in order to adjust the movement speed of the vehicle or the relative speed of the target objects such that each scenario or trial has a fixed, staircase, or variable speed depending on the setting. Upon such modification, the method and system of Harkness would include a speed selection instruction receiving unit that receives a speed selection instruction for selecting a moving speed by the examinee. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Faubert with Harkness’s system and method in order to provide appropriate testing of the user’s ability by adjusting the simulations to the subjects abilities to determine their skill level (Faubert Col 6, lines 55-64; Col 8, lines 15-41).
With regard to claim 2, Harkness further teaches wherein the characteristic measurement unit measures the characteristics based on the indication results in the speed-fixed display process (Paragraphs 0107-0109, 0126-0128, 0189 teach the system can evaluate user performance including determining a number of missed hazards or clues and each scenario/activity can be scored to determine a user’s crash-avoidance skill with regard to the simulations wherein the user’s performance in the visual awareness and hazard recognition would be based on the correct clicking (pointing actions) based on selecting the correct areas of the simulation including the hazards (target objects)), but may not explicitly teach wherein the display control unit further executes a speed-fixed display process to display the simulated moving image on the image display unit in a manner in which the moving speed is fixed to a preset reference speed. However, as discussed above, Faubert teaches a system and method for determining a perceptual-cognitive signature of a subject when performing a task correlating to abilities such as driving a car wherein a user is tested by presenting a plurality of objects moving on a display for a predetermined duration as part of a trial wherein the method can include a series of trails wherein the objects can have a fixed preset speed or a variable speed based on the parameters/settings of each trial (Col 1, lines 36-41; Col 4, lines 5-31; Col 8, lines 15-62).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harkness to incorporate the teachings of Faubert by incorporating the technique of setting a fixed or variable speed for target objects of Faubert for the simulations of Harkness, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and method for testing user visual perception of target objects such as during driving. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harkness by coding the system to include setting a speed variable for the simulation in order to adjust the movement speed of the vehicle or the relative speed of the target objects such that each scenario or trial has a fixed, staircase, or variable speed depending on the setting such that the moving speed can be fixed to a preset reference speed. Upon such modification, the method and system of Harkness would include wherein the display control unit further executes a speed-fixed display process to display the simulated moving image on the image display unit in a manner in which the moving speed is fixed to a preset reference speed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Faubert with Harkness’s system and method in order to provide appropriate testing of the user’s ability by adjusting the simulations to the subjects abilities to determine their skill level (Faubert Col 6, lines 55-64; Col 8, lines 15-41).
With regard to claim 3, Harkness may not explicitly teach wherein the display control unit executes the speed-variable display process after execution of the speed-fixed display process, and the speed selection instruction receiving unit receives the speed selection instruction after execution of the speed-fixed display process and before execution of the speed-variable display process. However, Faubert further teaches the process can include a series of trials and/or a plurality of series such that each trail or series can have a set or variable speed and the speed can be adjusted between trials (Col 5, lines 55-64; Col 6, lines 38-52; Col 8, lines 1-41).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harkness to incorporate the teachings of Faubert by incorporating the technique of setting a fixed or variable speed for target objects of Faubert for the simulations of Harkness, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and method for testing user visual perception of target objects such as during driving. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harkness by coding the system to include setting a speed variable for the simulation in order to adjust the movement speed of the vehicle or the relative speed of the target objects such that each scenario or trial has a fixed, staircase, or variable speed depending on the setting wherein the speed being fixed or variable or the set speed can be adjusted between trials such that a first trial is a fixed speed and the second is a variable speed wherein the speed is set between the trials. Upon such modification, the method and system of Harkness would include wherein the display control unit executes the speed-variable display process after execution of the speed-fixed display process, and the speed selection instruction receiving unit receives the speed selection instruction after execution of the speed-fixed display process and before execution of the speed-variable display process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Faubert with Harkness’s system and method in order to provide appropriate testing of the user’s ability by adjusting the simulations to the subjects abilities to determine their skill level (Faubert Col 6, lines 55-64; Col 8, lines 15-41).
With regard to claim 4, Harkness further teaches wherein the characteristics include the target object perception ability (Paragraph 0102; “visual awareness skills”) and the self-control ability of the examinee (Paragraphs 0114, 0118; “managing speed and space for safer driving”).
With regard to claim 7, Harkness further teaches wherein the speed selection instruction receiving unit receives the speed selection instruction during the speed-variable display process, and the display control unit changes the moving speed in accordance with the speed selection instruction during the speed-variable display process (Paragraphs 0118, 0147, 0150, 0156 teach the scenarios can include the trainee adjusting speed such as to maintain safe spacing or for merging such that adjusting the speed of the simulated vehicle would result in the display speed adjusting accordingly during the scenario/simulation and displaying accordingly).
With regard to claims 8-10, Harkness further teaches wherein the characteristic includes a risk of the examinee while moving (Paragraphs 0037, 0050, 0056, 0140, 0151 teach the performance evaluation can include qualitative assessments of the simulation performance including if behavior is risky or safe). Harkness further teaches the simulations can be combinations of the skill assessments including visual awareness, hazard recognition, and speed and space management skills such that a combination of a user’s performance at hazard recognition/identification of clues and speed adjustments based on the situation such as a vehicle being in a blind spot can be used for the qualitative assessment of risky and safe behavior wherein slowing down (reducing moving speed) to perform an action or when a hazard is missed would result in a safer behavior assessment while missing an identification or improper speed is a worse score/riskier behavior (Paragraphs 0050, 0143, 0153, 0156, 0189, 0191, 0194) thereby teaching the characteristic measurement unit determines that in a case where there is no location-pointing action correctly pointing to the location of the target object at the specific time during the speed-variable display process, the risk is lower when there is a speed selection instruction to reduce the moving speed than when there is no speed selection instruction to reduce the moving speed [claim 8]; the characteristic measurement unit determines that in a case where there is no location- pointing action correctly pointing to the location of the target object at the specific time during the speed-fixed display process and there is no location-pointing action correctly pointing to the location of the target object at the specific time during the speed-variable display process, the risk is lower when there is a speed selection instruction to reduce the moving speed than when there is no speed selection instruction to reduce the moving speed [claim 9]; and wherein the characteristic measurement unit determines that in a case where there is no location- pointing action correctly pointing to the location of the target object at the specific time during the speed-fixed display process and there is a location-pointing action correctly pointing to the location of the target object at the specific time during the speed-variable display process, the risk is lower when there is a speed selection instruction to reduce the moving speed than when there is no speed selection instruction to reduce the moving speed [claim 10]. Examiner further notes that Harkness teaches slowing down results in safer behavior and all three claims state that the risk is lower when a user reduces moving speed than when they do not. The preceding determinations of correct or incorrect pointing all result in the same determination that risk is lower when the moving speed is reduced as is taught by Harkness regardless of performance in identifying the hazards (Harkness Paragraphs 0110, 0150-0151).
With regard to claim 11, Harkness may not explicitly teach wherein the display control unit executes the speed-variable display process after execution of the speed-fixed display process. However, Faubert further teaches the process can include a series of trials and/or a plurality of series such that each trail or series can have a set or variable speed and the speed can be adjusted between trials (Col 5, lines 55-64; Col 6, lines 38-52; Col 8, lines 1-41).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harkness to incorporate the teachings of Faubert by incorporating the technique of setting a fixed or variable speed for target objects of Faubert for the simulations of Harkness, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and method for testing user visual perception of target objects such as during driving. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harkness by coding the system to include setting a speed variable for the simulation in order to adjust the movement speed of the vehicle or the relative speed of the target objects such that each scenario or trial has a fixed, staircase, or variable speed depending on the setting wherein the speed being fixed or variable or the set speed can be adjusted between trials such that a first trial is a fixed speed and the second is a variable speed. Upon such modification, the method and system of Harkness would include wherein the display control unit executes the speed-variable display process after execution of the speed-fixed display process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Faubert with Harkness’s system and method in order to provide appropriate testing of the user’s ability by adjusting the simulations to the subjects abilities to determine their skill level (Faubert Col 6, lines 55-64; Col 8, lines 15-41).
With regard to claim 12, Harkness further teaches wherein the simulated moving image includes the target object representing actual risk (Per paragraph 0021 of the instant application, actual risk objects are physical objects such as cars, bicycles, and pedestrians; Harkness Paragraphs 0096, 0101-0102, 0107-0108 teach the scenarios can include having the user identify hazards including other cars, pedestrians, and bicycles) and the target object representing potential risk (Per paragraph 0021 of the instant application, potential risk objects are perceived dangers such as blind spots; Harkness Paragraphs 0093, 0098, 0102 teach the scenarios can include having a trainee identify blind spots), the characteristics include the risk of the examinee while moving (Paragraphs 0110, 0122, 0132, 0140, 0151 teach the evaluation can be with regard to a risk of crash or risky behavior of the trainee while driving), and the characteristic measurement unit measures the risk due to a visual field defect based on the indication result at the specific time when a scene including the target object representing actual risk is displayed (Paragraphs 0108-0109, 0126-0128, 0189 teach the system can determine how many missed hazards and clues such as the cars, pedestrians, and bicycles the trainee missed which can be used for calculating a score for the skill such that a measurement of weakness in the skill (risk) can be determined; While Harkness does not specifically teach this being a visual field defect, the limitation is an intended use that is reflective of the determination which can be performed by the teachings of Harkness without further modification as Harkness performs all the functional elements as recited), and the risk due to cognitive function decline based on the indication result at the specific time when a scene including the target object representing potential risk is displayed (Paragraphs 0108-0109, 0126-0128, 0189 teach the system can determine how many missed hazards and clues such as the blind spots the trainee missed which can be used for calculating a score for the skill such that a measurement of weakness in the skill (risk) can be determined; While Harkness does not specifically teach this being a cognitive function decline, the limitation is an intended use that is reflective of the determination which can be performed by the teachings of Harkness without further modification as Harkness performs all the functional elements as recited).
With regard to claim 13, Harkness further teaches wherein the simulated moving image is a moving image simulating the field of vision of a human driving a vehicle and moving on the course (Paragraphs 0040, 0042, 0049 teach the system presents a trainee with driving scenarios within a simulated driving environment corresponding with a trainee’s field of view while driving (moving)).
With regard to claim 14, Harkness further teaches further comprising the image display device (Paragraphs 0049, 0052; “audiovisual device”).
With regard to claim 15, Harkness, as modified, further teaches an information processing system (Abstract; Paragraphs 0049-0050, 0192; “computing device”) comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above); and an image display device as the image display unit (Paragraphs 0049, 0052; “audiovisual device”).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harkness in view of Faubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harkness ‘349 (US PGPub 20090181349), and further in view of Kamath (US PGPub 20210110737).
With regard to claim 5, Harkness in view of Faubert may not explicitly teach wherein the characteristic includes the self-evaluation ability of the examinee, the information processing device further comprises a self-evaluation receiving unit that receives a self-evaluation of the indication results evaluated by the examinee, and the characteristic measurement unit measures the characteristic based on the self- evaluation. However, Harkness ‘349 teaches a system and method for diagnosing driving skills of a driver including driving simulations and providing a self-assessment to a driver to complete a survey wherein the responses to the survey are recorded for correlation analysis (Abstract; Paragraphs 0048, 0105, 0109-0112).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harkness in view of Faubert to incorporate the teachings of Harkness ‘349 by incorporating the step of providing a self-assessment of Harkness ‘349 for the driving scenarios and simulations of Harkness, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and method for testing user visual perception of target objects using driving simulations. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harkness in view of Faubert by coding the system to include providing a self-assessment survey to a trainee with regards to a driving scenario to self-assess their driving and related skills and storing the responses for correlation analysis. Upon such modification, the method and system of Harkness in view of Faubert would include wherein the characteristic includes the self-evaluation ability of the examinee, the information processing device further comprises a self-evaluation receiving unit that receives a self-evaluation of the indication results evaluated by the examinee. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Harkness ‘349 with Harkness in view of Faubert’s system and method in order to further analyze trainee performance and improve trainee performance.
Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 may not explicitly teach the characteristic measurement unit measures the characteristic based on the self- evaluation. However, Kamath teaches a system and method for measuring user performance and self-awareness while performing tasks wherein the user’s self-awareness score is based on the user’s awareness of their performance and actions wherein a user’s score is affected more when there are less accurate (higher difference between self-assessment and actual performance) (Paragraphs 0050-0051, 0053, 0055, 0060, 0108).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 to incorporate the teachings of Kamath by applying the technique of measuring a user’s self-awareness of their performance and actions of Kamath as a measured skill of Harkness, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and method for evaluating user skills with regard to task performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 by coding the system to use the self-assessments as taught by Harkness ‘349 with regard to the activities and skill evaluations of Harkness to measure a user’s self-awareness with regard to their performance and driving risk. Upon such modification, the method and system of Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 would include the characteristic measurement unit measures the characteristic based on the self- evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kamath with Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349’s system and method in order to improve trainee recognition of their skills and limitations and improve upon them (Kamath Paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 6, Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 may not explicitly teach wherein the characteristic measurement unit determines the self-evaluation ability of the examinee based on the difference between the self-evaluation and the actual indication results. However, as discussed above, Kamath teaches a system and method for measuring user performance and self-awareness while performing tasks wherein the user’s self-awareness score is based on the user’s awareness of their performance and actions wherein a user’s score is affected more when there are less accurate (higher difference between self-assessment and actual performance) (Paragraphs 0050-0051, 0053, 0055, 0060, 0108).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 to incorporate the teachings of Kamath by applying the technique of measuring a user’s self-awareness of their performance and actions of Kamath as a measured skill of Harkness, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and method for evaluating user skills with regard to task performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 by coding the system to use the self-assessments as taught by Harkness ‘349 with regard to the activities and skill evaluations of Harkness to measure a user’s self-awareness with regard to their performance and driving risk wherein the self-awareness metric is based on the accuracy (difference) between a user’s self-assessment and actual performance. Upon such modification, the method and system of Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349 would include wherein the characteristic measurement unit determines the self-evaluation ability of the examinee based on the difference between the self-evaluation and the actual indication results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kamath with Harkness in view of Faubert and Harkness ‘349’s system and method in order to improve trainee recognition of their skills and limitations and improve upon them (Kamath Paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Examiner notes that claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing Step 1 as discussed above for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection under steps 2A and 2B for being directed to ineligible subject matter is included herein for the sake of compact prosecution assuming Applicant amends the claim to overcome Step 1.