DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims in application 19/024,708 filed on 1/16/2025.
The Pre-Grant publication # 20250157356 is published on 5/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Objections
Claim 1 clause include “ … of the vehicle based on signals received from the received from the simulation control unit” repeating the term ‘received from’ making it unclear. Appropriate correction needed.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is a computer system (1-8) and to a process (claim 9-20). Thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 and 9 are directed to a system for a user interface for driving simulation. A vehicle interface module configured to receive sensor signals and a simulation control unit process inputs while interacting with projected simulated environment enables driver interacting with simulation settings. All of these involve steps drawn to concept categorized as an actions that are observing, identifying, evaluating and judging of interface inputs and outputs. A concept that are “mental processes” and by including capturing data, projecting on simulated setting could be considered falling within the realms of “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas without any significant improvement in functionality of machines. The use of revision by machine-learned model could be categorized as a use mathematical calculations are falling within some mathematical concepts. Those elements in the claims are generally categorized as a grouping of an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “system for adapting a vehicle for a user interface”, “a processor’, “a memory’, " data generating a simulated environment” are merely use of generic computer functions and computer parts on a projected simulating environment. Amendments to include "a feedback mechanism configured to provide haptic feedback in the form of resistance or power, through the one or more operable components of the vehicle based on signals received from the received from the simulation control unit; and..." appears to be only a application of haptic feedback mechanism known in art. This not an improvement in the functioning of simulating machine. Hence not indicative of integration of a practical application (Step 2A: Prong 2 No).
The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in art. Fig.2 of the instant specification depict the capturing of data to process simulation by projecting on windows and delivery of haptics movements for a hardware/ software in a standard display environment claimed here. The application on pages 3-5 of the instant specification indicates that “A vehicle interface module , not shown, engages with the vehicle's CANbus to interface with sensor signals from the vehicle's operable components. Operable components may include pedals, a steering wheel, and an instrument cluster. Pedals may include a brake pedal, accelerator (and clutch pedal if present, which receives signals from a shift lever). This interface module gathers sensor data and transmits the data to a simulation control unit”. Here one skilled in the art understands electronic modules connect to a CANbus etc. and are generically used in addition to the abstract idea. They are disclosed in their specification in a manner that indicates that those features are well-known, routine, and conventional. Since no actual improvements such as in adapting to interface module, utilization of machine specific learning, etc. in projecting sensor signals and/or in other displays, these are all well-known, routine, and conventional (WRC) devices, as evidenced by the limited disclosure in their specification as to how to make and/or use them. There found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a computer itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No).
Claims 2-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a programmable processor or vehicle interfacing computer modules informing simulating control unit to capture data to include brake pressure, accelerator position, steering angle, and instrument cluster. The method generating driving scenarios that include road conditions, traffic, racing options and environmental factors. They are improving the performance of the process or computer technology itself or provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. But not effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing and the underlying computing elements remain the same. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, for these reasons, it appears that the dependent claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Application Publication Number US 20160005333 A1 to Naouri in view of US Patent Number 8412499 B2 to Sizov.
Claim 1. Naouri teaches a system for adapting a vehicle for a user interface for driving simulation (Para 0032-0037 user interface adapted vehicle to simulating devices) comprising:
a vehicle interface module configured to capture data from the vehicle's operable components ( Fig.2 player actions; Para 0059, 0060 capturing data from vehicle's operable components like gas/brake pedals) ; and
a simulation control unit coupled to the vehicle interface module, the simulation control unit configured to receive sensor signals from the vehicle interface module to process said sensor signals to generate a simulated environment( Fig.2 elements Cam(10), PU(40) capturing video stream data or sensor signals for simulation environment like a simulation control unit) ; Para 0021 simulation control; Para 0032 equipped with position sensors) ;and
a projection system configured to project images consistent with the simulated environment (Para 003 project display); but not a feedback mechanism configured to provide haptic feedback in the form of resistance or power, through the one or more operable components of the vehicle based on signals received from the received from the simulation control unit;
Sizov, however, in an analogous because of reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, teaches the a haptic feedback mechanism by way of the vehicle's electronic control systems for the operable components (col.2 lines 40-44 Returning feedback force or haptic effects of vehicle operable steering wheel to a central position in electronic control system ; force-feedback effect to the steering by actuators). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate feedback mechanism configured to provide haptic feedback in the form of resistance or power, through the one or more operable components of the vehicle based on signals received from the received from the simulation control unit, as taught by Sizov , into the system of Naouri, in order to obtain quick feedback on input parameters for each phases of simulation.
and user interface configured to allow a driver to interact with simulation settings (Fig.2 Para 0078 user interface 30 driver interaction) .
Claim 2. Naouri teaches the system of claim 1 wherein: the projection system includes a windscreen projector; wherein motion images of the simulated environment are projected on the windscreen by way of heads-up display technology (Para 0003 heads-up projector display technology).
Claim 3. Naouri teaches the system of claim 1 wherein: the projection system includes a side window projector for at least the vehicle's front-seat side windows (Para 0051 display monitor option could include side window projector) .
Claim 4. Naouri teaches the system of claim 1 wherein: said projection system employes OLED display (Para0003 display could be added with OLED; OLED stands for Organic Light-Emitting Diode which is a specific type of display panel technology commercially available in art from later 20th century).
Claim 5. Naouri teaches the system of claim 1 wherein: said projection system employes laser-projection technology (Fig.2 monitor may have a laser projector that projects changing laser beams on a screen to create a moving image for driver experience).
Claim 6. Naouri teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising: at least one mirror projector; wherein simulated environmental images are projected on the at least one mirror (Para 0003, 0015 projection on a mirror; images are projected where mirror projector are easily available in art e.g. use of a mirror as a projector screen).
Claim 7. Naouri teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising:1a feedback mechanism electronically coupled with the simulation control unit and vehicle interface module configured to provide haptic feedback through the vehicle's operable components ( Para 0060 feel of vehicle slowing down could be haptic).
Claim 8. Naouri teaches the system of claim 7 further comprising: the feedback mechanism configured to provide haptic feedback through a vehicle's sound system.
Claim 9. Naouri teaches a method for using the system of claim 1, the method comprising: capturing data capturing data via an vehicle interface module connected to a vehicle control area network in the vehicle interface module wherein the data corresponds to inputs from vehicle operable components; and transmitting the data to a simulation control unit; and processing the data in simulation control unit to generate deriving scenarios ; and a simulated driving environment by projecting images through the projection system (Fig.1; Para 0003 heads-up projector display technology from data captured in a vehicle interface; scenarios projected) but not delivering explicit haptic feedback in the form of resistance power by way of the vehicle's electronic control systems for the operable components.
Sizov, however, in an analogous because of reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success teaches the delivering haptic feedback in the form of resistance power by way of the vehicle's electronic control systems for the operable components (col.2 lines 50-57 Returning feedback force or haptic effects of vehicle operable steering wheel to a central position in electronic control system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate delivering haptic feedback by way of the vehicle's electronic control systems for the operable components, as taught by Sizov , into the system of Naouri, in order to obtain quick feedback on input parameters for each phases of simulation.
Claim 10. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: the vehicle interface module captures data including brake pressure, accelerator position, steering angle, and instrument cluster; wherein the data is used to inform the simulation control unit to provide resistance or power to generated driving scenarios (Para 0019 – 0021 inertial measurement and scenario capture) .
Claim 11. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: driving scenarios include road conditions, traffic and environmental factors (Para 0089 road conditions).
Claim 12. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising: displaying simulation settings on the simulation control unit ; and providing for input by a user for adjusting simulation settings ( Fig.2 PU(40) from player actions of user input to simulation settings).
Claim 13. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising: simulating racing conditions; and analyzing racing performance; and adapting training programs according to analyzed racing performance (Para 0075 adapted video games could be analyzing racing conditions as known in art).
Claim 14. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising: and recording performance data of the driver, wherein the performance data includes braking efficiency, acceleration patterns and steering precision; and analyzing the performance data to identify areas for improvement; presenting traffic scenarios to test driving skills; and teaching safe driving by presenting scenarios demonstrating safe driving; wherein driving and safety skills are trained in a controlled, immersive environment (Para 0033, 0089 safety conditions in scenarios immersive in augmented environment could determine driver performance in areas of improvement) .
Claim 15. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: said driving scenarios relate to road racing ( (Para 0033 road conditions that could result in driving for a road racing).
Claim 16. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: said driving scenarios relate to dragstrip racing ( Para 0052 a type of motorsport, where two vehicles race could head-to-head in a straight line, starting from a standstill, over a fixed distance.
Claim 17. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: said driving scenarios relate to drifting ( Para 0089 illustrates some driving scenarios that could include drifting).
Claim 18. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: said driving scenarios relate to off-road racing (Para 0067 user action could relate to encode scenarios and motion parameters from off-road racing ) .
Claim 19. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: said driving scenarios relate to rock crawling racing (Para 0067-0068 combination of racing parameter could include rock crawling racing from a remote server running).
Claim 20. Naouri teaches the method of claim 9 wherein: said driving scenarios relate to rally racing (Para 0061-0068 input parameters to driving scenarios may include rally racing as another design consideration from options from available racing art server).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on January 30, 2026 have been considered.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendments changing the scope of the claims.
35USC101
Applicant on page 5 indicated that the invention could overcome the 101 rejections by being more than a "mental process" or a "method organizing human behavior" by virtue of the fact that it uses the vehicle electronics to alter the function of the vehicle's controls to provide haptic feedback. Examiner agree that there some additional elements in claim that more than the abstract idea. However they are not “significantly more”.
Applicant also cited Paragraph [0027] of the instant specification as follows;
[0027] The vehicle interface module sends signals from the vehicle's operable components, and the simulation control unit 111 runs the simulation. The simulation control unit 111generates code to signal the vehicle interface module to engage operable components to provide haptic feedback. In one example, the vehicle's electronic steering is used to provide resistance or to power the steering in accordance with the simulation. One skilled in the art understands how similar systems may be used to provide resistance to braking, changes in instrumentation in response to accelerator movement, changes in engine behavior according to clutch and shift movement, and the like. Haptic feedback in the form of sound is generated and played through a vehicle sound system 120.
Also cited that the amendment: "a feedback mechanism configured to provide haptic feedback in the form of resistance or power, through the one or more operable components of the vehicle based on signals received from the received from the simulation control unit..."has been added to claim 1.
Hence the claimed invention overrides the normal function i.e. power steering, providing assistance in steering as well as resistance in accordance with the simulation. Examiner respectfully traverses and indicate that haptic feedback could be enabled, resistance power, power to steering or braking etc. are not found to be supported by written description of specification. Argument also not in commensuration with the claim language.
Haptic feedback is just providing another transitory output unlike patent eligible case, e.g., Diamond v Diehr, where the output of the computer program is to permanently transform a piece of rubber into some different shape.
35USC 101 rejection is maintained.
35USC102
Applicant on page 6 asserted that the prior art Naouri vehicle's control area network do not to alter the function of the vehicle's operable components. It does not use the power steering mechanism to provide resistance to the power steering. Examiner respectfully traverses and indicate that the alleged argument is not in commensuration with the claim language that only about the transitory haptic feedback.
The secondary art Sizov uses an apparatus that allow vehicle's electronic control systems to provide haptic feedback, such as turning the steering wheel without undue friction.
35USC102 rejection is withdrawn, Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendments changing the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The teaches the examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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.
/S.Z/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
April 2, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715