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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain improperly shaded figures. Figs. 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4A and 4B are improperly shaded. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitations are:
code for processing the output signals to record first data in claim 1;
code for modifying operation of the human safe-driving course in claim 1;
code for recording second data in claim 1;
first constituent apparatus in claim 6;
code for altering visual elements in claim 9;
code for introducing optical noise in claim 9;
code for repositioning a driver visual element in claim 9;
code for ceasing said changes in claim 9;
code for delaying in claim 9; and
device configured to impede vision in claims 19 and 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding the written description and enablement requirements, the specification fails to provide an adequate disclosure of the computer-implemented functional limitations recited in the claims. Specifically, claim 1 recites "code for processing the output signals to record first data," "code for modifying operation of the human safe-driving course," and "code for recording second data." Furthermore, dependent Claim 9 recites "code for introducing optical noise at a pre-determined first location" (9B) and "code for delaying, in a pre-determined fashion, at least one of said altering and repositioning" (9E). These functional software limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as means-plus-function limitations, requiring the disclosure of a corresponding algorithm in the specification to serve as the necessary structure.
However, the specification fails to disclose any step-by-step algorithm, flowchart, mathematical formula, or detailed prose outlining the operational steps to perform these functions. For example, regarding the "code for introducing optical noise" (9B), the specification merely states that "such noise is visual and implemented by switching on and off the LEDs around the pre-determined first location". This disclosure is purely functional and fails to describe the specific algorithmic logic, timing, or sequence required to coordinate the LEDs to produce the claimed "optical noise."
Similarly, regarding the "code for delaying, in a pre-determined fashion" (9E), the specification only generically states that "the program code is configured to delay, in a pre-determined fashion, the repositioning and/or re-orientation of the optical representation of the user's vehicle". The disclosure completely lacks any algorithm, mathematical model, or parameters defining how the "pre-determined fashion" is calculated, how the delay is scaled relative to the user's physical inputs, or how the processor executes this latency.
Because the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for these computer-implemented functions, it does not provide sufficient corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Consequently, the specification fails to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date, violating the written description requirement. Furthermore, without a disclosed algorithm, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in undue experimentation to write the necessary software and implement the claimed system, thereby violating the enablement requirement. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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 1-20 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.
In re Claims 1 & 12
These computer-implemented functional limitations fail to recite any physical structure. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the term "code" is a computer-implemented nonce term that invokes means-plus-function construction. Under established USPTO guidelines and Federal Circuit precedent the corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must be a general-purpose processor or computer programmed with a specific algorithm (such as a flowchart, mathematical formula, or detailed prose description) to perform the recited function.
A review of the specification reveals that the applicant has failed to disclose any specific step-by-step algorithm to perform these functions. The specification merely states that the "driving training program code" is executed to process signals and modify operations, which represents a high-level "black-box" functional result. Because the specification fails to disclose corresponding algorithms, the structural boundaries of the "code" terms are undefined. Consequently, independent Claims 1 and 12 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The dependent claims are also held to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) due to their dependencies on the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,366,376 (Copperman).
In re Claims 1 & 12
Copperman teaches A system for training safe driving by a human subject, the system comprising a driver training system operated by a user or student to improve safe driving performance ("The driver training system 100 is operated by a user or student 102 (shown schematically), who desires to improve driving performance." - col. 6, ll. 21–23);
a human safe-driving course to be performed by the human subject during at least one driving training session (Copperman discloses implementing driving courses (such as a lane change course 142 on a steering track 140) performed during structured training sessions ("FIG. 2 is a user's view while maneuvering through a lane change course on a steering track..." - col. 5, ll. 15–18; "By selecting 'Start Scenario', the student 102 then begins driving." - col. 8, ll. 50–52));
first and second sensors configured to detect inputs applied to said course by the human subject during the at least one driving training session and to generate output signals representing said inputs -Copperman discloses: physical steering, braking, and accelerating controls associated with sensors that detect physical inputs and generate representative electrical output signals ("In the driver training system 100, the user 102 moves a turn signal lever 104, and depresses a brake pedal 106 and gas pedal 108..." - col. 6, ll. 45–47; "The mechanical inputs provided by the user 102... are translated by transducers into electrical signals which are fed into a computer 114." - col. 6, ll. 53–56);
a processor operably coupled with a tangible non-transitory memory storage and configured at least to execute a driving training program code stored in said storage, the driving training program code including Copperman discloses a microprocessor operably coupled to read-only memory (ROM) storing instructions to run the training simulation ("The computer 114 executes computer software which is stored in a memory... such as 27512 read-only memory (ROM) chips." - col. 6, ll. 58–62; "The computer software... is logically organized to include a control process 120." - col. 7, ll. 8–10);
code for processing the output signals to record first data representing tangible responses of the human subject to changes in the human safe-driving course during the at least one driving training session -Copperman discloses software code that processes input sensor signals to record the student's physical responses (steering position, pedal flags) during the active training interval ("At state 372, the computer determines if the car is inside the record rectangle 154 (FIG. 3)... If so, the computer 114 records... (4) position of steering wheel 112... (6) gas pedal 108 depressed... and (7) brake pedal 106 depressed..." - col. 15, ll. 59–68);
code for modifying operation of the human safe-driving course in response to said output signals, Copperman discloses: Code that dynamically updates the perspective and state of the course in response to the user's inputs ("Accordingly, the control process 120 applies the 'rules of the road' to the new position of the car, and initiates signals to drive a video display 122, a speaker 124..." - col. 7, ll. 19–23);
and
code for recording second data representing the operation of the human safe-driving course in correspondence to the output signals. Copperman discloses Code that records the state and operational parameters of the simulated course (obstacle coordinates, track state) in direct correlation to the temporal and spatial coordinates of the user's input signals ("If so, the computer 114 records the following set of data in the presently preferred embodiment at 1/5 second intervals, known as delta time, at state 374 and saves the data in the save-point buffer at state 376." - col. 15, ll. 61–65).
In re Claim 2
Copperman teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses generating a detailed summary evaluation screen that displays a plan view of the student's physical path superimposed on an instructor's ideal path, representing a visual summary of performance ("FIG. 4b is a diagram of the summary evaluation screen showing a top plan view of a student’s path 192 superimposed upon the instructor’s path 180 through the lane change course 142..." - col. 10, ll. 20–25).
In re Claim 8
Copperman teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses a sound system that triggers crashing noises when a student's inputs cause the vehicle to collide with barriers or cones ("Then, at a state 296, collision sounds are generated. These are the sounds associated with the observer car colliding with barriers, cones, buildings, and the like." - col. 14, ll. 7–10).
In re Claim 11
Copperman teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further discloses comparing recorded performance parameters (steering wheel position, pedal states) between distinct sessions (instructor's baseline path vs. student's path) and superimposing the steering graphs visually to represent the performance variation ("In the steering graph area 182, a steering path 194 represents the position of the steering wheel 112 (FIG. 1) for the ideal path, and a steering path 195 is for the student’s path through the course 142." - col. 10, ll. 30–34).
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.
Claims 3, 9, 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copperman as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 11,436,935 (Welles).
In re Claims 3, 13, 15 & 17
Copperman teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 12 (see rejections above) but fails to specifically teach program code configured to dynamically vary presentation parameters (such as timing, frequency, spatial distribution, and presentation duration) of the visual indicia representing the road or obstacles and the claimed second session.
Welles discloses a simulated training system that modifies tasks in real-time, specifically varying presentation parameters (timing, density, spatial distribution, and presentation speed) of environmental elements (pedestrians, cyclist hazards, road widths, and weather) to control task complexity and manage trainee stress (col. 16, lines 12–40).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to integrate Welles’ real-time, adaptive complexity management into Copperman’s driving simulation system in order to to optimize the trainee’s cognitive load and stress levels, thereby enhancing the educational efficacy and overall safety of the driving simulation. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to have made these modifications in a second session in order to track progress and/or trends over sessions.
In re Claim 9
Copperman teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection above) but fails to specifically teach software-enabled localized optical noise at a first location, steering coordinate repositioning to avoid obstacles, and pre-determined delay of visual changes.
Welles et al. discloses highly specific software modules within its adaptive courseware, including generating visual distractions (blurring, local noise) to manage trainee attention and adjusting steering responses/inputs dynamically (col. 14, lines 50–65; col. 15, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize these specific software control modules from Welles et al. in the system of Copperman et al. to provide a cohesive, adaptive software control suite capable of dynamically adjusting visibility and input parameters, thereby tailoring the training task directly to the driver's real-time skill progression.
In re Claim 10
Copperman teaches the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection above) but fails to specifically teach code for animating independent traffic hazards that pull out into the lane from outside the road.
Welles explicitly teaches introducing independent dynamic hazards (pedestrians, cyclists, intersections) that enter the simulated roadway independently of the user's inputs to simulate real-world emergency scenarios (col. 18, lines 45–60).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to introduce Welles' independent, dynamic hazard elements into Copperman's training system. This combination provides a more realistic defensive driving environment, training the user's reflexes against sudden, unpredictable environmental hazards that occur independently of their own actions.
In re Claim 14
Copperman teaches the limitations of 12 (see rejection above) but fails to specifically teach explicit code for terminating a training session automatically based on a defined collision threshold or the expiration of a pre-defined session time duration.
Welles details automated segment cessation and session halting based on pre-defined parameter thresholds (such as biometric safety limits or chapter time limits) (col. 20, lines 5–25).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine these teachings to include automated termination rules. This ensures the student does not continue practicing in a failed or highly unstable state, structures lessons into manageable time blocks, and improves overall simulator throughput.
In re Claim 16
Copperman and Welles render the teachings of claim 15 obvious (see rejection above) and while Copperman fails to specifically teach explicit code for terminating a training session automatically based on a defined collision threshold or the expiration of a pre-defined session time duration, Welles details automated segment cessation and session halting based on pre-defined parameter thresholds (such as biometric safety limits or chapter time limits) (col. 20, lines 5–25).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine these teachings to include automated termination rules. This ensures the student does not continue practicing in a failed or highly unstable state, structures lessons into manageable time blocks, and improves overall simulator throughput.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,269,687
US 20060040239
US 20080064014
US 9,583,017
US 20250118222.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday (7-5).
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights