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 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.
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: module in claim 17.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for a vehicle-based driving simulator. The limitation of reading a current configuration/setting/driving mode of a vehicle, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “driving simulator,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “driving simulator” language, “reading” in the context of this claim encompasses a user reading a setting of a vehicle in their mind. Similarly, the limitations of: generating, selecting and actuating are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – driving simulator. The driving simulator is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a driving simulator amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2018/0184014 A1 to Goldstein (hereinafter “Goldstein”).
Concerning claim 1, Goldstein discloses a method for a vehicle-based driving simulator (Abstract), the method comprising:
reading a current configuration/setting/driving mode of a vehicle (paragraphs [0037], [0038] – configuration mode of vehicle is determined);
generating a dynamic model of the vehicle based on the current configuration/setting/driving mode of the vehicle (paragraphs [0037]- [0040] – dynamic model of vehicle is generated based on selection);
selecting a virtual driving scenario for the vehicle according to the current configuration/setting/driving mode of the vehicle (paragraphs [0041]- [0046] – various virtual driving scenarios are presented); and
actuating hardware of the vehicle to simulate performance of the selected virtual driving scenario in the vehicle (paragraphs [0036], [0047]- [0053] – vehicle hardware is used to simulate virtual driving scenario).
Concerning claims 2, 10, and 18, Goldstein discloses further comprising using a virtual reality headset and/or a tablet computer as a display of the vehicle-based driving simulator (paragraph [0027] – computer tablet is used as display).
Concerning claims 3, 11, and 19, Goldstein discloses in which actuating further comprises displaying the virtual driving scenario on a front-windshield of the vehicle (paragraphs [0027], [0034] – front windshield may display scenario).
Concerning claims 4, 12, and 20, Goldstein discloses further comprising: determining a head pose of a driver of the vehicle; and adjusting the displaying of the virtual driving scenario according to the head pose of the driver (paragraph [0027] – driver line of sight may be used to determine scenario).
Concerning claims 5, and 13, Goldstein discloses in which actuating further comprises: generating virtual sensor inputs to simulate radar and vision sensors of the vehicle using a world simulation model; and feeding the virtual sensor inputs to electric control units (ECU) of the vehicle (paragraph [0029] – various sensors may be used in generating simulation).
Concerning claims 6, and 14, Goldstein discloses in which selecting the virtual driving scenario comprises simulating driving on an icy road, suddenly stopping on a highway, and/or driving through an animal crossing of a road in darkness (paragraphs [0028]-[0034] – real world properties are used in the simulation).
Concerning claims 7, and 15, Goldstein discloses in which actuating comprises providing haptic feedback to a driver of the vehicle during the virtual driving scenario (paragraphs [0029]-0033], [0054] – feedback is provided to driver of vehicle).
Concerning claims 8, and 16, Goldstein discloses in which actuating further comprises simulating vehicle acceleration and/or deceleration using an air suspension of the vehicle (paragraph [0044] – acceleration is determined).
Concerning claims 9 and 17, see the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights