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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-28 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed and reviewed by examiner.
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) are: “a guide system to receive and guide an on-road vehicle…” and “a content output system configured to generate content…” in claim 1, “a display configured to present the exterior rendered portion of the content”.
The “a content output system configured to generate content…” and “a guide system configured to guide the on-road vehicle along the path…” in claim 1 limitations invoke 35U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
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 1-14 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 limitation(s) “a content output system configured to generate content…” and “a guide system configured to guide the on-road vehicle along the path…” in claim 1, and “the communication system is configured to receive a first command from the guide system and to transmit the first command…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Furthermore, it is unclear if these are software or hardware structures? Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of application No.17/762,960 (filed on 03/24/2022, now U.S. patent No. 12109504). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For, example, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claim 1 of the related application. The breadth of the instant application claims (e.g. claim 1) would read on the narrow claim(s). These changes, in view of the related application, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and the secondary reference(s) and the corresponding claims they are contained within.
Furthermore, the same analysis applies to the dependent claims of the instant application which are seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of the claims of the related application and are be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and the secondary reference(s).
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-19, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle (US 20170095742 A1) in view of Geylik (US 20130274024 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Boyle discloses an entertainment system comprising: a guide system to receive and guide an on road-vehicle along an entertainment track, wherein the on-road vehicle is guided autonomously (see at least [abstract], [0036], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7]), at least one processor configured to identify a make and model of the on-vehicle, the at least one processor coupled to a communication system positioned before an entrance of the guide system (see at least [abstract], [0036], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14], see element 14 on the figures in which the vehicle (14) appears to be of different make and model.);
However, Boyle do not specifically disclose a content output system in communication with the guide system and the at least one processor configured to generate content based on characteristics of the on-road vehicle, wherein the characteristics of the on-road vehicle are determined based on the identified make and model of the on-road vehicle, and wherein the generated content is presented to one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle.
Geylik teaches a content output system in communication with the guide system and the at least one processor configured to generate content based on characteristics of the on-road vehicle (see at least [0030-0034]), wherein the characteristics of the on-road vehicle are determined based on the identified make and model of the on-road vehicle (see at least [0030-0034]), and wherein the generated content is presented to one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle (see at least [0030-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate Geylik’ s teachings of a content output system in communication with the guide system and the at least one processor configured to generate content based on characteristics of the on-road vehicle, wherein the characteristics of the on-road vehicle are determined based on the identified make and model of the on-road vehicle, and wherein the generated content is presented to one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle. This would be done to advance virtual reality entertainment and provide a satisfactory experience for users (drivers) in a simulation of a real-world scenario (see Geylik para 0003).
With respect to claim 2, Boyle discloses wherein the one or more characteristics of the on-road vehicle comprise one or more of a size parameters of the on-road vehicle, interior features of the on-road vehicle, exterior features of the on-road vehicle, an entertainment system of the on-road vehicle, a number of displays of the on-road vehicle, an audio system of the on-road vehicle, and a number of occupants of the on-road vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0036], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14]).
With respect to claim 3, Boyle discloses wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to communicate with the on-road vehicle via a communication protocol (see at least [0036-0039]).
With respect to claim 4, Boyle discloses wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to: generate a secure communication interface with the on-road vehicle (see at least [0036-0039]); and perform a handshake protocol with the on-road vehicle via the secure communication interface (see at least [0036-0039]).
With respect to claim 5, Boyle discloses wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to receive make and model information of the on-road vehicle from the on-road vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0036], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14], see element 14 on the figures in which the vehicle (14) appears to be of different make and model.).
With respect to claim 8, Boyle do not specifically disclose wherein the content output system is further configured to: determine one or more features of the on-road vehicle corresponding to the generated content; and activate a subset of the one or more interior features of the on-road vehicle to represent features of the generated content.
Geylik teaches wherein the content output system is further configured to: determine one or more features of the on-road vehicle corresponding to the generated content (see at least [0030-0034]); and activate a subset of the one or more interior features of the on-road vehicle to represent features of the generated content (see at least [0030-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate Geylik’ s teachings wherein the content output system is further configured to: determine one or more features of the on-road vehicle corresponding to the generated content; and activate a subset of the one or more interior features of the on-road vehicle to represent features of the generated content. This would be done to advance virtual reality entertainment and provide a satisfactory experience for users (drivers) in a simulation of a real-world scenario (see Geylik para 0003).
With respect to claim 9, Boyle do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle are activated for a subset of the one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle.
Geylik teaches wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle are activated for a subset of the one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle (see at least [0030-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate Geylik’ s teachings wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle are activated for a subset of the one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle. This would be done to advance virtual reality entertainment and provide a satisfactory experience for users (drivers) in a simulation of a real-world scenario (see Geylik para 0003).
With respect to claim 10, Boyle do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle comprise a display of the on-road vehicle, climate control of the on-road vehicle, and a lighting system of the on-road vehicle.
Geylik teaches wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle comprise a display of the on-road vehicle, climate control of the on-road vehicle, and a lighting system of the on-road vehicle (see at least [0030-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate Geylik’ s teachings wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle comprise a display of the on-road vehicle, climate control of the on-road vehicle, and a lighting system of the on-road vehicle. This would be done to advance virtual reality entertainment and provide a satisfactory experience for users (drivers) in a simulation of a real-world scenario (see Geylik para 0003).
With respect to claim 11, Boyle do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle are activated at a same time as the generated content is presented to the one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle.
Geylik teaches wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle are activated at a same time as the generated content is presented to the one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle (see at least [0030-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate Geylik’ s teachings wherein the one or more features of the on-road vehicle are activated at a same time as the generated content is presented to the one or more occupants of the on-road vehicle. This would be done to advance virtual reality entertainment and provide a satisfactory experience for users (drivers) in a simulation of a real-world scenario (see Geylik para 0003).
With respect to claim 12, Boyle teaches wherein at least one processor coupled to the communication system is configured to communicate with transponders of the on-road vehicle, wherein the transponders comprise the make and model of the on-road vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0036-0039], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14], see element 14 on the figures in which the vehicle (14) appears to be of different make and model.).
With respect to claim 13, Boyle discloses wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to communicate with a mobile device of an occupant of the on-road vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0036-0039], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14], see element 14 on the figures in which the vehicle (14) appears to be of different make and model.), wherein the mobile device comprises the make and model of the on-road vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0036-0039], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14], see element 14 on the figures in which the vehicle (14) appears to be of different make and model.).
With respect to claim 14, Boyle discloses wherein the at least one processor is further coupled to a visual system, the visual system positioned before the entrance of the guide system (see at least [abstract], [0036-0039], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14], wherein the visual system is configured to scan a barcode of the on-road vehicle (see at least [abstract], [0036-0039], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14], wherein the barcode comprises the make and model of the on-road vehicle(see at least [abstract], [0036-0039], [0041-0042], [0049-0062], and [Figs 3-7 and 11-14]).
With respect to claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective entertainment system claims 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. As such, claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective entertainment system claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 6-7 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle (US 20170095742 A1) in view of Geylik (US 20130274024 A1) in view of Vardharajan (US 20200062269 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Boyle as modified by Geylik do not specifically teach wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to receive a VIN number of the on-road vehicle from the on-road vehicle.
Vardharajan teaches wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to receive a VIN number of the on-road vehicle from the on-road vehicle (see at least [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle as modified by Geylik, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate Vardharajan teachings wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to receive a VIN number of the on-road vehicle from the on-road vehicle. This would be done to operate safely using the vehicle functionality profile (see Vardharajan para 0068).
With respect to claim 7, Boyle as modified by Geylik do not specifically teach wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to determine the characteristics of the on-road vehicle based on the VIN number.
Vardharajan teaches wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to determine the characteristics of the on-road vehicle based on the VIN number (see at least [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle as modified by Geylik, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate Vardharajan teachings wherein the at least one processor coupled to the communication system is further configured to determine the characteristics of the on-road vehicle based on the VIN number. This would be done to operate safely using the vehicle functionality profile (see Vardharajan para 0068).
With respect to claims 20 and 21 they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective entertainment system claims 6 and 7. As such, claims 20 and 21 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective entertainment system claims 6 and 7 and are incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667