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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 USPQ 645 (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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,335. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention as claimed in the present invention is substantially encompassed within the invention as set forth in the patent. For example, claim 1 recites a method that is substantially overlapping to the method as recited in claim 1 of the patent as detailed in the limitation-by-limitation comparison in the table set forth above. For the sake of brevity and compact prosecution, a comparison of claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of the patent is presented, however, any skilled artisan would readily ascertain the substantial overlap of the other independent and dependent claims 2-20 of the present application to claims 2-20 of the patent. Consequently, the Examiner positions that a terminal disclaimer to obviate this standing of nonstatutory double patenting is warranted.
Claim 1 of App. No. 19/034,252
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,335
1. A computer-implemented method for training a virtual character, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user, a selection of the virtual character, the virtual character comprising: a character profile; and one or more virtual ratings;
generating, based at least in part on the character profile, one or more virtual occurrences;
determining, based at least in part on the one or more virtual ratings, one or more outcomes associated with the one or more virtual occurrences;
initiating a virtual trip, the virtual trip including the one or more virtual occurrences to be encountered by the virtual character;
receiving telematics data associated with a real-life trip of a real-life vehicle operated by the user;
determining, based at least in part on the telematics data, one or more real-life skills of the user indicative of how proficient the user operated the real-life vehicle upon encountering one or more real-life obstacles;
determining, based at least in part on the one or more real-life skills of the user, one or more skill points associated with the one or more real-life skills; and
training the virtual character by at least updating, based at least in part on the one or more skill points, the one or more virtual ratings.
1. A computer-implemented method for training a virtual character of a telematics-based game, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user, a selection of the virtual character, the virtual character having a character profile and a plurality of virtual ratings associated with a plurality of virtual skills;
generating, based at least in part upon the character profile, one or more virtual occurrences;
determining, based at least in part upon the plurality of virtual ratings, one or more outcomes associated with the one or more virtual occurrences;
initiating a virtual trip, the virtual trip including the one or more virtual occurrences to be encountered by the virtual character;
receiving, in real-time or near real-time with a real trip, telematics data associated with the real trip, the real trip being in process and traveled by a real vehicle operated by the user;
determining, based at least in part upon the telematics data, one or more real obstacles encountered by the user during the real trip;
determining, based at least in part upon the telematics data, one or more performances indicative of how proficient the user operated the real vehicle upon encountering the one or more real obstacles;
determining, based at least in part upon the one or more performances, one or more skill points associated with a plurality of real skills;
training the virtual character by at least updating, based at least in part upon the one or more skill points, the plurality of virtual ratings;
updating, based at least in part upon the plurality of virtual ratings, as updated, the one or more outcomes; and
upon completion of the real trip: updating the character profile based at least in part upon the one or more virtual occurrences and the associated one or more outcomes, as updated; and presenting the character profile, as updated, to the user.
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 without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 – Statutory class?
Claims 1-20 recite either a process, a machine, or an article of manufacture and thus are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
Claims 1, 11, & 20 recite substantially similar scope, thus claim 1 is representative herein.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating real-world user performance, assigning points based on the evaluation, and updating a character profile or rating based on the points.
In particular, claim 1 recites:
receiving a user selection of a character having a profile and rating;
generating virtual occurrences based on the character profile;
determining outcomes of the occurrences based on the ratings;
determining real-life user skills from telematics data;
determining skill points based on the real-life skills;
updating the characters ratings based on the skill points.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. For example, a person can observe a driver’s behavior during a trip, evaluate whether the driver navigated, braked, controlled speed, or maintained attention proficiency, assign a score or point value to the observed behavior, and update a rating or profile representing that person’s or corresponding character’s driving ability. Similarly, a person can apply a set of rules to a character profile and ratings to determine likely outcome of a virtual driving encounter.
The claim does not require a particular technical mechanism for (i) collecting, processing, or correlating the telematics data, (ii) identifying a vehicle event or obstacle encounter, (iii) determining an asserted skill from the data, (iv) assigning skill points, (v) generating a virtual occurrence, (vi) determining a virtual outcome, or (vii) updating a virtual rating.
Rather, the claim broadly recites desired information-processing results including obtaining information, evaluating the information, assigning points based on the evaluation, and changing character profile information based on those points.
Accordingly claims 1, 11, & 20 recite a mental process, which is an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The identified mental process including observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, all of which can be performed in the human mind, with or without the aid of pen/paper.
Dependent claims 2-10 & 12-19 do not remove the claims from the mental process grouping. The added limitations merely refine the information evaluated, rules applied, points assigned, game states maintained, or information presented. For example, claims 2 & 12 specify categories of obstacles, claims 3 & & 13 specify that occurrences include obstacles, claims 4 & 14 specify outcomes correspond to a likelihood of success in overcoming obstacles, etc. For the sake of brevity, the dependent claims are deemed to set forth additional mental process limitations including additional observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical application?
The claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited by the claims including, at most, a generic processor, a generic non-transitory computer-readable medium, a generic computer implementation, a real-life vehicle as merely a source of telematics data, a virtual character, a virtual vehicle, a virtual trip, virtual obstacles, a virtual map, and presentation of character profile information.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements merely provide a generic technological environment in which the abstract idea is applied. The claims do not recite a particular technological implementation that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Telematics data is generic data gathering. The limitation of receiving “telematics data associated with a real-life trip of a real-life vehicle operated by the user” is directed to obtaining information for later evaluations. The claims do not specify (i) a particular telematics device or subsystem, (ii) a particular vehicle sensor, controller, communication bus, data interface, or other protocol, (iii) specific data types, such as acceleration, braking pressure, steering angle, speed, location, etc., (iv) a procedure for receiving, authenticating, synchronizing, filtering, or normalizing the telematics data, (v) a technique for detecting real-life obstacles from the telematics data, or (vi) an improvement in telematics collection, vehicle sensing, vehicle control, or vehicle safety, as some examples of possible aspects that could set forth a practical application of the abstract idea.
Virtual environment aspects is a field of use. The recitation of a virtual character, character profile, virtual ratings, virtual occurrences, virtual obstacles, a virtual trip, a virtual map, and other virtual aspects do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as these limitations broadly apply the abstract idea to a virtual game or training environment. The claims do not recite (i) a particular game engine, simulation engine, or network architecture, (ii) a technical improvement to operation of the virtual environment, (iii) a particular technique for reducing computational load, improvements to rendering, etc. (iv) a real-time control or feedback process that changes operation of the real-life vehicle, or (v) a particular unconventional technique by which real-world telematics are transformed into virtual game state data, as some example of possible aspects that could set forth a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claims are drafted primarily in functional, result-oriented language. For example, they recite various steps such as generating virtual occurrences, determining outcomes, determining skills, determining skill points, training a character, updating ratings, etc. but do not recite how these results are technically accomplished.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception. The claims are therefore directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B – Significantly more?
The claims do not recite an inventive concept or additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claimed processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and computer-implemented operations are recited at a high level of generality and perform only conventional computer functions, including receiving information, storing or accessing information, generating information, analyzing information, applying rules, assigning scores, modifying data fields, and presenting results.
Similarly, the real-life vehicle and telematics data are used merely as a source of information for the claimed mental process evaluation. The virtual character and other virtual aspects are features used to apply the abstract scoring and profile management concept in a virtual environment.
Considered individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely perform generic data gathering, generic data analysis, generic rule application, generic data updating, and generic output functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the elements merely automated the following workflow: obtain information regarding real-world vehicle operation, evaluate the information to assess user proficiency, assigning one or more points to that assessment, applying the points to update a character profile and rating, and display virtual outcomes based on the updated information.
The ordered combination therefore amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computer components and generic information processing. The claims do not recite a nonconventional arrangement of components, an unconventional telematics technique, or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights