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 Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jones et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Jones”) (US 2017/0285639 A1) and in view of Tiwari et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Tiwari”) (US 2018/0154899 A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 11, Jones discloses a control system in which the steering wheel (40), the accelerator control (42), and the brake control (44) are associated with sensors that provide information regarding pow a driver turns the steering wheel, or applies the brakes (see paragraph 0044); a processor (28) as shown in Fig. 1, coupled to the vehicle controller (32) for controlling the vehicle (see paragraphs 0041-0043), wherein the processor (28) provides the driver input to the simulator (22) (see paragraphs 0044, and 0045), wherein the simulator (22) includes a viewing screen that provides a visual representation of an environment in a vicinity of a vehicle based on the driver input using the driver input means (24) (see at least Fig. 2; and paragraph 0045).
However, Jones fails to disclose or even suggest the features of “generate torque configured to control the driving motor based on the virtual driving information.”
Tiwari discloses another vehicle control system in which the drive motor generates a torque to rotate the rotating portion of the steering column, and the torque transfer mechanism (e.g., gears) receives the generated torque and transfers it to the driven gears. This description implicitly suggests the capability to control the driving motor based on visual driving information (e.g., in advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) or autonomous driving) or other inputs, as the motor generates torque to rotate the steering column without a direct mechanical link from the driver.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jones reference with the teachings as taught by Tiwari to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing haptic feedback to the driver, simulating real-world road forces in driving simulators to increase realism.
Regarding claim 13, Jones further suggests “restricting entry into the virtual driving mode based on a determination that the vehicle is driving” (see paragraphs 0038, and 0039).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jones (US 2017/0285639 A1), Tiwari (US 2018/0154899 A1), and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Yamamoto”) (US 2024/0043014 A1).
Neither Jones nor Tiwari discloses or even suggests the features of “restrict the driver motor from being driven based on a driver-required torque in the virtual driving mode.”
Yamamoto discloses a vehicle control system in which the ECU (300) control of suppressing the speed and torque of the engine (410) or the motor in a virtual driving mode (see paragraphs 0017-0020).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Jones and Tiwari with the teachings as taught by Yamamoto to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing superior haptic feedback and driver awareness of the potential risk, allowing the driver to feel the need to regain control.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is found none of the prior art discloses or even suggests the limitations of:
Maintain the virtual driving mode based on an index signal, wherein a value of the index signal is configured to be changed at a specific interval while the virtual vehicle driving is running from the user terminal.
Perform a motion impact by controlling the driving motor such that a front wheel and a rear wheel of the vehicle rotate in opposite direction in the virtual driving mode.
For that reason, claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US-20230150369-A1, US-20220126722-A1, WO-2020219802-A1, and WO-2004081900-A1.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights