DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 7/2/26 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are under examination, and claims 8-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 5, the limitation “modifying the configuration” should be modified to read “the modifying the configuration”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 (AIA )
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2015/0142262 A1 to LEE.
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches A method (par. 0064: method of simulation) comprising:
receiving, by a vehicle of a first type, an input indicating selection of a second type of vehicle, wherein the second type of vehicle is different than the first type of vehicle (par. 0021: digital dashboard 24 may display a menu 30 of vehicles. FIG. 2, for simplicity, only illustrates several different options in the menu 30 of vehicles. In practice, though, the menu 30 of vehicles may be any graphical user interface that presents a listing of many different manufacturers 32 and/or models 34 of vehicles. The driver touches or otherwise selects any one of the vehicles in the menu 30 of vehicles; par. 0064: The graphical menu 30 of vehicles is displayed by the dashboard 24, thus presenting options for selecting different vehicles for different simulations (Block 282). The option 36 from the menu 30 of vehicles is received (Block 284));
determining, by the vehicle, information about one or more parameters for the second type of vehicle (par. 0021: Continuing with the same example, suppose the driver selects an option 36 corresponding to the TESLA MOTORS MODEL S. FIG. 3 thus illustrates retrieval of a vehicle profile 40 that corresponds with the driver's option 36; par. 0064: The vehicle profile 40 is retrieved (Block 286); par. 0022: the profile 40 may also contain known performance characteristics 50 for the same preferred vehicle);
modifying, by the vehicle, a configuration of the vehicle based on the one or more parameters for the second type of vehicle (par. 0021: Exemplary embodiments replace the manufacturer's OEM, production interface and, instead, format the performance data 22 for display using the vehicle profile 40 for the TESLA MOTORS MODEL S. The vehicle profile 40 thus contains information or instructions for recreating or replicating the graphical interface 26 that corresponds with the driver's option 36; par. 0024: Display instructions 70 may be generated and sent back to the vehicle 20); and
operating, by the vehicle, as the second type of vehicle (par. 0021: FIG. 3 thus illustrates the dashboard 24 altered and configured to match the interface 26 of the TESLA MOTORS MODEL S, according to the vehicle profile 40. Again, even though the driver's existing vehicle 20 is a VOLKSWAGON BEETLE, the dashboard 24 displays the performance data 22 using the different interface 26 of the MODEL S. Exemplary embodiments thus mimic the visual, dashboard experience of driving the MODEL S; par. 0024: the dashboard 24 mimics the appropriate interface 26).
Regarding claim 3, LEE further teaches wherein the receiving the input comprises receiving the input via a human machine interface of the vehicle (par. 0021: digital dashboard 24 may display a menu 30 of vehicles…The driver touches or otherwise selects any one of the vehicles in the menu 30 of vehicles; par. 0064: The graphical menu 30 of vehicles is displayed by the dashboard 24, thus presenting options for selecting different vehicles for different simulations (Block 282). The option 36 from the menu 30 of vehicles is received (Block 284)).
Regarding claim 5, LEE further teaches wherein modifying the configuration further comprises: determining one or more criteria associated with the second type of vehicle; and modifying a profile of the vehicle to use the one or more criteria (par. 0021: Exemplary embodiments replace the manufacturer's OEM, production interface and, instead, format the performance data 22 for display using the vehicle profile 40 for the TESLA MOTORS MODEL S).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LEE.
Regarding claim 2, LEE teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first type of vehicle is a small box truck and the second type of vehicle is a semi-trailer. However, LEE teaches that the first vehicle may comprise a truck (par. 0044). Further, LEE teaches that whatever the driver's existing vehicle, the dashboard 24 may be configured to match any option in the menu 30 of vehicles, and that if the menu 30 of vehicles lacks an option for a particular vehicle, searches may be conducted for applications mimicking the preferred vehicle so that drivers may thus experience any vehicle of their choice (par. 0025). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of LEE, to other types of vehicles, including a small box truck as the first vehicle (i.e., driver’s own vehicle) and a semi-trailer as the second vehicle (i.e., the vehicle driver wants to experience), in order to allow the driver to experience any vehicle of their choice with any vehicle they provide, i.e., experience driving a semi-trailer in a small box truck, and doing so would amount to simple substitution of one known element (i.e., vehicle type) for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LEE, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2021/0192968 A1 to MADISON.
Regarding claim 4, LEE teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more parameters include, length, width, height, or gross train weight. However, MADISON also teaches a vehicle simulator (Abstract) which allows for a driver to select a vehicle (par. 0086). MADISON discloses that based on the selected vehicle to simulate, a simulator module may adjust various control elements, including vehicle height of the simulation, to add realism to the simulation (par. 0087). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of control elements including height of the simulation, when selecting a vehicle, as taught by MADISON, in the modifying step of LEE, in order to add realism by adjusting the simulation to reflect the selected vehicle height, thereby providing the user the experience of driving a different vehicle.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LEE, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2024/0119873 A1 to PUSKUL.
Regarding claim 6, LEE teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose monitoring a driving performance of a driver operating the vehicle, based on the one or more criteria, wherein the one or more criteria include following distance, stopping distance, or turning radius.
Regarding claim 7, LEE teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose generating a driving performance evaluation report including a driving score for the driver.
However, PUSKUL teaches a training vehicle for training novice drivers wherein based on certain criteria, including the driver’s ability to follow a leading vehicle at a proper following distance, the driver is awarded a score assessing the driving capabilities of the driver (par. 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a driver’s training component that generates a score based on the driver’s ability to follow a lead vehicle at a proper following distance, as taught by PUSKUL, into the invention of LEE, in order to provide the driver with an assessment of their driving capability in a different vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
