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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 5-6, the limitation “end or continue the practice mode according to whether or not an answer of the user to a question represented by the question information is correct” is contradictive and grammatically confusing as it does not clearly specify if the practice mode continues if the answer is correct or if the mode ends if the answer is correct. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation can be interpreted as ending or continuing regardless of the answer correctness and should be clarified.
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 4 and 6 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 4 recites “the autonomous driving function and the driving assistance function”, but previous recitations of the limitations use the term “or”. Thereby, it is unclear if the progress information requires both functions or just data on the one function used by the previous claims. Further, since the previous limitations use only “or”, the interpretation for the independent claim is one function or the other but not both. Therefore, the limitation cannot be an “and” in view of the independent claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “on a second display device serving as the output device and different from the first display device”, but the first display device is also claimed as serving as the output device. The output device in claim 1, the independent claim, and claim 6 recites an output device and does not specify a plurality of devices so the recitation renders the claim unclear and indefinite as it is unclear if the output device is a singular device or multiple devices. Examiner recommends amending all recitations of an/the output device to (the) one or more output devices or (the) at least one output device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (US PGPub 20170061826), hereinafter referred to as Jain.
With regard to claims 1, 8, and 9, Jain teaches an information processing device (Abstract; Paragraph 0016; “in-vehicle tutorial system”) comprising: a memory (Paragraphs 0016-0017), and a processor coupled to the memory (Paragraphs 0016-0017), wherein the processor is configured to perform the method [claim 1] (Paragraphs 0016-0017), an information processing method executed by a processor [claim 8] (Abstract; Paragraphs 0009, 0016-0017 teach methods for in-vehicle tutorials executed by a processor), and a non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program executed by a processor [claim 9] (Paragraph 0017 teach the system can be implemented by a computer-readable media including computer-executable instructions executed by the processor(s)), comprising:
executing a practice mode for practicing at least one of an autonomous driving function or a driving assistance function of a vehicle (Paragraphs 0012, 0019-0020, 0024-0025 teach the system provides a tutorial which can be provided during a parking mode (practice mode) to simulate and train a user on an operational feature of the vehicle including ADAS or autonomous vehicle features), and
output, from an output device, output content according to whether or not an input operation of a user, to a specific operation related to execution of the autonomous driving function or the driving assistance function instructed in the practice mode, is correct (Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0020, 0022, 0039 teach the system can provide feedback to the user in the form of multimedia content or tutorial content (output content) based on a comparison of user behavior to expected driving behavior (correct operation)).
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) 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Hsu-Hoffman et al. (US PGPub 20230306866), hereinafter referred to as Hsu.
With regard to claim 2, Jain may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to output, from the output device, progress information indicating how much progress has been made in practice by the user in the practice mode being executed. However, Hsu teaches a system and method for driver training and assessment including tracking a user based on their skill level and progress in various skills based on user performance and time spent on the task/skill and displaying corresponding percentages, bars, and pie charts based on the user skill level and progress (Figures 6A, 11; Paragraphs 0090, 0092, 0128, 0133).
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 Jain to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by applying the technique of tracking a user’s skill/progress with regard to driving skills and tasks and displaying the information of Hsu to the system and method with regard to the vehicle features of Jain, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to driver/driving training systems including comparing user behavior to an expected/target behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jain by programming the system to track the user performance with regard to each operational feature of the vehicle and generate a corresponding skill level and progress bar/graph for each feature/skill and presenting the information on the display including with regard to a current practice/tutorial. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jain would include wherein the processor is further configured to output, from the output device, progress information indicating how much progress has been made in practice by the user in the practice mode being executed. 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 Hsu with Jain’s system and method in order to improve user performance by tracking and presenting user completion and progress with regard to an operational feature and providing a user interface presenting the information.
With regard to claim 4, Jain may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to display progress information indicating how much progress has been made in practice by the user in the autonomous driving function and the driving assistance function executable in the practice mode, as a summary on a display device serving as the output device. However, Hsu further teaches the system can generate and present progress reports including the charts and graphs reflecting the student’s driving experience/skill in a number of categories (Paragraphs 0088-0089).
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 Jain to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by applying the technique of tracking a user’s skill/progress with regard to driving skills and tasks and displaying the information in a progress report of Hsu to the system and method with regard to the vehicle features of Jain, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to driver/driving training systems including comparing user behavior to an expected/target behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jain by programming the system to track the user performance with regard to each operational feature of the vehicle and generate a corresponding skill level and progress bar/graph for each feature/skill (category) and presenting the information on the display in the form of a progress report (summary) showing the user’s progress in learning the features/experience in the tutorials for each corresponding feature/category. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jain would include wherein the processor is further configured to display progress information indicating how much progress has been made in practice by the user in the autonomous driving function and the driving assistance function executable in the practice mode, as a summary on a display device serving as the output device. 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 Hsu with Jain’s system and method in order to improve user performance by tracking and presenting user completion and progress with regard to an operational feature and providing a user interface presenting the information.
With regard to claim 5, Jain may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to, for each of a plurality of selection icons for selecting the autonomous driving function or the driving assistance function to be executed in the practice mode displayed on a display device serving as the output device, display progress information indicating how much progress has been made in practice by the user in the autonomous driving function or the driving assistance function corresponding to the selection icon. However, Hsu further teaches the system can include displaying one or more test skill icons which show the progress in the corresponding skill wherein the icons can be selected and changed by the user (Figures 10, 13; Paragraphs 0119-0121, 0140).
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 Jain to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by applying the technique of tracking a user’s skill/progress with regard to driving skills and tasks and displaying the information via a plurality of selectable skill icons of Hsu to the system and method with regard to the vehicle features of Jain, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to driver/driving training systems including comparing user behavior to an expected/target behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jain by programming the system to track the user performance with regard to each operational feature of the vehicle and generate a corresponding skill level and progress bar/graph for each feature/skill (category) and presenting the information on the display by presenting a plurality of selectable skill icons corresponding to the features and presenting the corresponding progress/skill level in each feature corresponding to the icon. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jain would include wherein the processor is further configured to, for each of a plurality of selection icons for selecting the autonomous driving function or the driving assistance function to be executed in the practice mode displayed on a display device serving as the output device, display progress information indicating how much progress has been made in practice by the user in the autonomous driving function or the driving assistance function corresponding to the selection icon. 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 Hsu with Jain’s system and method in order to improve user performance by tracking and presenting user completion and progress with regard to an operational feature and providing a user interface presenting the information.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Best et al. (US 8,894,415), hereinafter referred to as Best.
With regard to claim 3, Jain teaches the system can providing lighting cues including lighting up icons/controls corresponding to the expected driving behavior corresponding to the operational creature of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0039), but may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: display question information indicating a question related to the specific operation in the practice mode on a display device serving as the output device; and end or continue the practice mode according to whether or not an answer of the user to a question represented by the question information is correct. However, Best teaches a system and method for driver training including a simulated display of a view from a vehicle and the vehicle dashboard wherein the computer/display may present questions/response scenarios like “touch the fuel gauge”, detect a user input/response, compare to a correct icon/response, and adjust the simulation/training exercise accordingly including pausing/stopping the simulation for an incorrect/error response, repeating the exercise (continuing), or progressing to another simulation/step (Abstract; Col 2, lines 40-59; Col 6, lines 18-27; Col 9, lines 8-19; Col 10, lines 22-48; Claim 6).
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 Jain to incorporate the teachings of Best by incorporating the steps of presenting questions/prompts such as selecting/clicking an icon and adapting the simulation based on the user response of Best with the system and method of Jain, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to driver/driving training systems using simulated demonstrations/training. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jain by programming the system to display an instruction as part of a tutorial to the user to select an icon or activate a button/control corresponding to a current selected feature such as turning on or selecting the feature and adapting the simulation/tutorial based on the user response being correct or incorrect including stopping, repeating, or continuing the tutorial or simulation. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jain would include wherein the processor is further configured to: display question information indicating a question related to the specific operation in the practice mode on a display device serving as the output device; and end or continue the practice mode according to whether or not an answer of the user to a question represented by the question information is correct. 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 Best with Jain’s system and method in order to improve user performance and training acquisition and provide further/necessary training to the user based on user performance.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Suzuki et al. (US PGPub 20220315029), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki.
With regard to claim 6, Jain further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: display explanatory information indicating an explanation related to the autonomous driving function or the driving assistance function being executed in the practice mode, on a display device serving as the output device (Paragraphs 0011, 0020, 0023, 0025, 0039 teach the tutorial can include a multimedia user interface (display) displaying an animation with audio and/or messages (explanatory information) demonstrating and explaining the selected operational feature); and display, on a display device serving as the output device, a particular image illustrating the vehicle and surrounding conditions of the vehicle according to the explanatory information (Paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0026, 0041 teaches the system can detect a driving context including environmental, traffic, or geographic conditions (surrounding conditions) and includes animations (particular image) demonstrating the features synchronized with the audio/messages and instructions (explanatory information)), but may not explicitly teach a second display device, different from the first display device; and displaying a particular image illustrating the vehicle and surrounding conditions of the vehicle according to the explanatory information from a viewpoint of looking at the vehicle traveling from a virtual viewpoint. However, Suzuki teaches a driving support device for training a driver on various vehicle functions including assistive functions wherein the system includes a first display which can display information by the display of images to the driver and a second display on a portable communication device which can realize/perform various functions of the system wherein the system can display a virtual simulation of a function and driving support including a virtual view of the own vehicle and other vehicles as well as text/message (Paragraphs 0033, 0045, 0047, 0058, 0066-0068).
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 Jain to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki by incorporating the second display and presenting a virtual view of the vehicle demonstrating the function of Suzuki with the system and method of Jain, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to driver/driving training systems using simulated demonstrations of vehicle functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jain by including a portable communication device and/or second display and programming the displays to present the animation from a virtual view including the vehicle and the messages/instructions synchronized with the animation on a different/second display. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jain would include a second display device, different from the first display device; and displaying a particular image illustrating the vehicle and surrounding conditions of the vehicle according to the explanatory information from a viewpoint of looking at the vehicle traveling from a virtual viewpoint. 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 Suzuki with Jain’s system and method in order to provide a user with additional interfaces to display education content as including an additional/second display would be obvious to one of ordinary skill as merely duplicating hardware/functionality of the system (see MPEP 2144.04).
With regard to claim 7, Jain, as modified, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to change the particular image for display on the second display device according to a change in the explanatory information for display on the first display device (Paragraphs 0011, 0023, 0025, 0039 teaches the animation is synchronized with audio and other signals and messages (explanatory information) demonstrating the operational features wherein the information and animation can be displayed on the display devices as discussed above).
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-9 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
Prosecution Insights