DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/29/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was 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 submitted on 04/03/2025 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶¶ 4-5 of the specification include several instances of the “transfer of control (TOC)” acronym in lowercase (i.e., “toc”) that should be changed to uppercase “TOC” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: In line 2 of claim 8, it appears that “detecting transfer of control (TOC) event” should be changed to “detecting a transfer of control (TOC) event.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 makes reference to “a human driver” and “a user,” and it is unclear whether the human driver is the same person as the user, which leads to indefiniteness. For examination purposes, the human driver is interpreted as being the same person as the user. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
Regarding claims 2-7:
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 18:
Step 1: Claims 1 and 18 are each directed to a driver in-loop simulator. Claim 8 is directed to a method. Claims 1, 8, and 18 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1, 8, and 18 recite the abstract concept of simulating an autonomous vehicle. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1, 8, and 18 by the mental process steps of detecting a transfer of control (TOC) event, wherein the TOC event is an event in which a human driver should disengage autonomous driving and should take manual control; and in response to detecting the TOC event, detecting an input provided by a user of the driver-in-loop simulator through the input device, wherein the input is indicative that the user took control of a simulation experienced through the driver-in-loop simulator. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they include a human mentally identifying that a human driver should disengage autonomous driving and should take manual control, and then mentally identifying an input provided by a user of the driver-in-loop simulator through the input device. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 18, other than reciting “a controller,” nothing in the recited steps precludes the abstract idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “controller” language, the claims encompass a human operator mentally identifying the TOC event and the user input.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a controller that includes a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These are generic computer components (as supported by ¶ 15 of the instant specification) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of generic computer components such as the recited controller for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites a step of, in response to detecting the TOC event, displaying a notification on the human-machine interface display that the TOC has occurred. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is merely a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 1 additionally recites that the driver-in-loop simulator comprises a vehicle seat; a driver view display; a human-machine interface (HMI) display; and an input device. These limitations merely serve to generally link the abstract idea to the field of use of driver-in-loop simulation. The recited general linking limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they merely specify at a high level that the abstract idea is executed within the context of a driver-in-loop simulation (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 recites a step of, in response to detecting the TOC event, displaying a notification on a human-machine interface (HMI) display that the TOC has occurred. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is merely a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 18 recites a controller that is a generic computer component (as supported by ¶ 15 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of generic computer components such as the recited controller for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 18 further recites a step of, in response to detecting the TOC event, displaying a notification on the human-machine interface display that the TOC has occurred. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is merely a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 18 additionally recites that the driver-in-loop simulator comprises a vehicle seat; a human-machine interface (HMI) display; and an input device. These limitations merely serve to generally link the abstract idea to the field of use of driver-in-loop simulation. The recited general linking limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they merely specify at a high level that the abstract idea is executed within the context of a driver-in-loop simulation (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the controller is anything other than a conventional controller that be used in the context of driver-in-loop simulation. The mere use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere transmission or output of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the step of displaying a notification that the TOC has occurred merely amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The driver-in-loop simulator system components comprising a vehicle seat, a driver view display; a human-machine interface (HMI) display, and an input device is recited at a high level of generality, and the specification provides no indication that these components are anything other than conventional components used within a driver-in-loop simulation environment. Specifying that the systems of claims 1 and 18 include these components merely serves to generally link the abstract idea to the field of use of driver-in-loop simulation. Such general linking limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract itself, as they merely specify that the abstract idea is executed within the context of a driver-in-loop simulation (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1, 8, and 18 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-4, 9-11, and 19-20:
The dependent claims recite various limitations that further define the abstract idea. For example, claims 2 and 9 each specify that the input device is a steering wheel. These limitations merely serve to further define the mental process and are considered additional mental process steps.
Claims 3, 10, and 20 each recite the additional step of receiving scenario data. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a necessary data gathering step that is required for the execution of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) explains that mere receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claims 4 and 11 recite the additional steps of commanding the driver view display to show a scenario that is based on the scenario data; and displaying a scenario based on the scenario data. These steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are data output steps that do not impose meaningful limits on the claims such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) explains that mere transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 19 recites that the simulator further comprises a driver view display in communication with the controller. This is a general linking limitation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as explained regarding claim 1 above (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As explained above, dependent claims 2-4, 9-11, and 19-20 only recite limitations further defining the mental process, additional insignificant extra-solution activity, and additional limitations linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-4, 9-11, and 19-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohári (US 2024/0343293 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kohari.
Regarding claim 1:
Kohari discloses the following limitations:
“A driver-in-loop simulator, comprising: a vehicle seat; a driver view display; a human-machine interface (HMI) display; an input device; and a controller in communication with the driver view display, the HMI display, and the input device.” (Kohari ¶¶ 87-89 and annotated FIG. 6 below disclose a “driver’s seat 610,” “steering wheel 611,” and “controller assembly 621” that respectively correspond to the “vehicle seat,” “input device,” and “controller.” Further, Kohari ¶ 93: “The steering system according to the invention can also be used for simulation testing, in the course of which the steering system is mounted on a test bench, preferably a HIL (Hardware in the Loop) test bench, and drivers can interact with the steering system in a similar manner as during a test drive.” Additionally, Kohari ¶ 101 discloses that “A driver or user can interact with interfaces such as a steering wheel 71 or any other means for manual steering, and one or more actuators such as pedals 76,” which teaches the inclusion of a “human-machine interface (HMI), and Kohari ¶ 111 discloses that alerts can be sent in the form of a visual sign, which teaches the inclusion of a “driver view display.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
600
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“wherein the controller includes a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium in communication with the processor.” (Kohari ¶ 20 discloses “to provide a data processing system comprising means for carrying out the steps of the method, a non-transitory computer program product for implementing the steps of the method according to the invention on one or more computers, and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for carrying out the steps of the method on one or more computers.”)
“and the controller is programmed to: detect a transfer of control (TOC) event, wherein the TOC event is an event in which a human driver should disengage autonomous driving and should take manual control.” (Kohari ¶ 58: “The motor drive unit is configured to supply power to the direct drive motor based on the command received from the motion controller, and the feedback device is configured to monitor an actual value of the control parameter and to determine a difference value between the prescribed value of the control parameter according to the command and the actual value of the control parameter. The feedback device is further configured to initiate a disengagement of the direct drive motor if, based on the difference value, the at least one predefined disengagement limit corresponding to the actual predefined state is reached.”)
“in response to detecting the TOC event, display a notification on the HMI display that the TOC event has occurred.” (Kohari ¶ 56: “Preferably, in case of a disengagement a driver or user of the vehicle is notified and requested to take over the control of the vehicle.” Also, Kohari ¶ 111: “The alert can be sent in a form of a visual and/or audio sign.”)
“and in response to detecting the TOC event, detect an input provided by a user of the driver-in-loop simulator through the input device, wherein the input is indicative that the user took control of a simulation experienced through the driver-in-loop simulator.” (Kohari ¶ 132: “In case of a possible disengagement, it is preferred to know whether the human driver, the direct drive motor, or both applied torque on the steering axle. An additional logic layer can be added to determine whether the human driver, the direct drive motor, or both applied torque on the steering axle.”)
Regarding claim 2:
Kohari discloses “The driver-in-loop simulator of claim 1,” and Kohari further discloses “wherein the input device is a steering wheel.” (Kohari ¶ 88: “The steering wheel 611 can apply a torque on the steering axle 601 to steer the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 3:
Kohari discloses “The driver-in-loop simulator of claim 2,” and Kohari further discloses “wherein the controller is programmed to receive scenario data.” (Kohari ¶¶ 56 and 58: “The controller assembly is configured to detect an actual predefined state of the vehicle,” where “Each predefined state has at least one predefined disengagement limit, and exceeding a predefined disengagement limit preferably initiates a disengagement of the direct drive motor.”)
Regarding claim 4:
Kohari discloses “The driver-in-loop simulator of claim 3,” and Kohari further discloses “wherein the controller is programmed to command the driver view display to show a scenario that is based on the scenario data.” (Kohari ¶ 56 discloses that “Each predefined state has at least one predefined disengagement limit, and exceeding a predefined disengagement limit preferably initiates a disengagement of the direct drive motor. Preferably, in case of a disengagement a driver or user of the vehicle is notified and requested to take over the control of the vehicle.” Further, Kohari ¶ 111 discloses that when the system “alerts the driver to take over the control from the autonomous driving system… The alert can be sent in a form of a visual and/or audio sign.” The use of a visual sign for alerting the driver teaches to command the driver view display to show data as claimed.)
Regarding claim 5:
Kohari discloses “The driver-in-loop simulator of claim 4,” and Kohari also discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising a plurality of sensors in communication with the controller.” (Kohari ¶ 103: “For generating input parameters to the controller assembly, a simulation computer 78 is used that has a simulation software 79a and virtual sensors 79b.”)
“and the controller is programmed to simulate driving by an autonomous vehicle until the controller received the input that is indicative of the user took control of the simulation in response to detecting the TOC event.” (Kohari ¶ 122: “During driver handover window the steering system and the autonomous software continues to drive the vehicle, until the human driver takes over the control of the vehicle, or until the driver handover window times out. The human driver can take over the control by manually steering the vehicle, or by using an activation lever, or any other means indicating a driver override.” Also, Kohari ¶ 93: “The steering system according to the invention can also be used for simulation testing, in the course of which the steering system is mounted on a test bench, preferably a HIL (Hardware in the Loop) test bench, and drivers can interact with the steering system in a similar manner as during a test drive.”)
Regarding claims 8-12:
Claims 8-12 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1-5 above, respectively.
Regarding claims 18-19:
Claims 18-19 are rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 3 above, mutatis mutandis.
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.
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohari as applied to claims 5 and 12 above, and further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2023/0174135 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kawakami.
Regarding claim 6:
Kohari discloses “The driver-in-loop simulator of claim 5,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the controller is programmed to record the input provided by the user in response to detecting the TOC event.” However, Kawakami does teach this limitation. (Kawakami ¶ 49: “The autonomous control device 11 also outputs an assessment request for determining whether or not the control transfer request has been acknowledged by the driver 40, to the assessment device 12 via the in-vehicle network 13.” Further, Kawakami ¶ 34: “The assessment device 12 notifies the autonomous control device 11 that the control transfer request has been acknowledged. The autonomous control device 11 also switches driving of the vehicle 10 to manual control. The autonomous control device 11 further notifies the driver 40 that the control transfer request has been acknowledged, via the user interface UI5. It is thus recognized that the driver 40 has acknowledged the control transfer request and driving of the vehicle 10 has been switched to manual control.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kohari by recording the user input when the user needs to take over driving operations as taught by Kawakami with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this to comply with regulatory requirements since Kawakami ¶ 3 teaches that “by law, a level 3 autonomous control system must be able to recognize the following 3 driver acknowledgement actions.”
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Kohari and Kawakami teaches “The driver-in-loop simulator of claim 6,” and Kohari further teaches “wherein the TOC event is a [system] failure by at least one of the plurality of [system components].” (Kohari ¶ 159: “If there is a failure in the control of the vehicle, or the bridge command cannot be delivered within a certain time, the steering system preferably alerts the human driver and gives back the control.”)
Kohari does not specifically disclose that “the TOC event is a sensor failure by at least one of the plurality of sensors.” However, Kawakami does teach this limitation. (Kawakami ¶ 49: “Also in autonomous control mode, when it has been determined that driving of the vehicle 10 cannot be safely controlled due to a sensor malfunction, the autonomous control device 11 notifies the driver 40 of a control transfer request via the UI 5.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kohari by requesting the driver to take over driving operations in response to detecting a sensor failure as taught by Kawakami with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this to improve the safety of driving operations, since Kawakami ¶ 27 teaches that “Examples of cases where driving of the vehicle 10 cannot be safely controlled include sensor malfunction.”
Regarding claims 13-14:
Claims 13-14 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 6-7 above, respectively.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohari in view of Kawakami as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (WO 2024/186073 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yoo.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Kohari and Kawakami teaches “The method of claim 14,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the notification includes a yellow steering wheel and text indicative that the user should manually take over control of the driver-in-loop simulator.” However, Yoo does teach this limitation. (Yoo ¶ 324: “when a situation requiring driver intervention is detected while driving in autonomous driving mode, the driving mode display device (800) can change the color of the displayed second virtual steering wheel (1310) to yellow and additionally display highlighting/animation to draw the driver's attention. At this time, additionally displayed highlighting/animation may include information indicating the driver's intervention point/time.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kohari and Kawakami by displaying a yellow virtual steering wheel and text indicating that the user should take over manual driving operations as taught by Yoo with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Yoo ¶ 324 teaches that these modifications can help “to draw the driver’s attention.”
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Kohari, Kawakami, and Yoo teaches “The method of claim 15,” and Yoo also teaches the method “further comprising, showing, via the HMI display, a red steering wheel and text indicative that the driver-in-the-loop simulator is disengaging autonomous driving after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since the TOC event occurred.” (Yoo ¶ 325: “the driving mode display device (800) can provide a signal/notification of an urgent situation by displaying the second virtual steering wheel (1310) in red color based on the detection of a dangerous/urgent situation on the road or around the vehicle while driving in autonomous driving mode.” Also, Yoo ¶ 47 and annotated FIG. 19 below: “FIG. 19 is a drawing for explaining a method for notifying a time point for switching to manual driving during autonomous driving in an autonomous driving mode display device.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
514
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kohari and Kawakami by displaying a red virtual steering wheel and text information indicating that autonomous driving will be disengaged after a certain amount of time as taught by Yoo with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Yoo ¶ 323 teaches that this can help “to alert the passenger and induce temporary intervention or switching to manual driving mode.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohari in view of Kawakami and Yoo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 116901991 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhu.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Kohari, Kawakami, and Yoo teaches “The method of claim 15,” and Yoo additionally teaches the method “further comprising showing, via the HMI display, a green steering wheel and a text.” (Yoo ¶ 334: “the visual image representing the connection status of the detected autonomous driving mode may include, for example, different images, texts, etc., in addition to the different colors (e.g., green, yellow, red, etc.) described above.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kohari and Kawakami by displaying a green virtual steering wheel and textual information as taught by Yoo with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Yoo ¶¶ 323-324 teach that these modifications can help to “alert the passenger and induce temporary intervention or switching to manual driving mode” and help “to draw the driver’s attention.”
The combination of Kohari, Kawakami, and Yoo does not explicitly teach to change the display to be “indicative that the user successfully took over manual control of the driver-in-the loop simulator after the user takes manual control of the driver-in-the loop simulator.” However, Zhu does teach this limitation. (Zhu ¶ 10 discloses “controlling the second indicator light to flash with the second color and the target brightness until switching to manual driving mode.” Also, Zhu ¶ 53 discloses another example where, “when the success rate is below the threshold, the terminal controls the second indicator light to flash red. This means that the autonomous driving system is not capable of safely and independently passing through the target driving scenario and requires manual intervention. After manual intervention, the terminal sets the first and second indicator lights to the off state.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kohari, Kawakami, and Yoo by displaying information that indicates whether the user took over manual control of driving operations as taught by Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Zhu ¶ 63 teaches that the use of different colors to indicate the driving state “helps passengers make a clear and definite judgment.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that changing the display after the user successfully takes over manual control could help the driver to stay calm and understand that the system has recognized their input to the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Alaniz et al. (US 2016/0210383 A1) Abstract and ¶ 24 disclose a virtual autonomous response testbed system configured to “receive a user input representing a vehicle control action associated with operating a virtual vehicle in a virtual environment, virtually navigate the virtual vehicle through the virtual environment according to the vehicle control action, collect virtual sensor data, and process the virtual sensor data collected,” and wherein “With the interactive virtual scenarios presented in the virtual environment 150, the user can navigate the virtual vehicle through the virtual environment 150 to test sign and obstacle detection processes, observe autonomous driving process performance, or experiment with switching between autonomous and manual driving modes.”
Wimmer et al. (US 2022/0026903 A1) Abstract discloses a driver assistance system in which “An error handling unit is configured, in the driving mode for hands-free driving, to maintain the vehicle guidance with different restrictions of functions of the vehicle guidance, and to output a vehicle guidance take-over request to a person driving the vehicle, in different failure scenarios of sub-sensor systems of the vehicle surroundings sensor system.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662