Advanced Training System LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2020005537 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/285,017 05/22/2014 Aaron M. Best 3055.7 1096
22497 7590 04/01/2021
LARSON AND LARSON
11199 69TH STREET NORTH
LARGO, FL 33773
EXAMINER
EGLOFF, PETER RICHARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
frank@larsonpatentlaw.com
ipdocket@larsonpatentlaw.com
patents@larsonpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON M. BEST, J. KEN BARTON, DAVID J. HAVELL,
REGINALD T. WELLES, DARRELL R. TURPIN,
JAMES W. VOORHEES, JOHN KEARNEY SR.,
CAMILLE B. PRICE, NATHAN P. STAHLMAN,
AARON J. TURPIN, and AARON M. PURVIS
Appeal 2020-005537
Application 14/285,017
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4−8, and 10−19. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adaptive Training
System, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005537
Application 14/285,017
2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system, method and apparatus for
adaptive driver training. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An adaptive training system comprising:
a computer, the computer having a storage device;
a plurality of interactive training segments stored on the
storage device and accessible by the computer;
a plurality of simulation segments stored on the storage device
and accessible by the computer;
a graphics display, the graphics display simulates a windshield
of a target vehicle, the computer generates images on the graphics
display;
a plurality input devices, the input devices corresponding to
control devices of the target vehicle, each of the plurality of input
devices are electrically interfaced to the computer and are operated by
a trainee, at least one of the plurality of input devices being a steering
wheel and at least one of the plurality of input devices being a brake
pedal;
the computer configured to operate in either of two modes of
operation, a first mode of the two modes of operation being a
simulation mode in which the computer displays video from one of
the simulation segments on the graphics display and receives control
directives from the plurality of input devices, and a second
mode of the two modes of operation being a training mode, in which
the computer displays video and/or text from one of the interactive
training segments on the graphics display and receives responses from
the trainee;
first, the computer operates in the simulation mode, collecting
data from the plurality of input devices; and
next, the computer determines if a driving issue has occurred
while the computer is operated in the simulation mode by comparing
the data to expected data from the one of the simulation segments, the
computer immediately changes to operate in the training mode and
presents one or more of the interactive training segments while the
Appeal 2020-005537
Application 14/285,017
3
trainee remains within the adaptive training system and displays video
and/or text from one of the interactive training segments that is related
to the issue on the graphics display while the trainee remains within
the adaptive training system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dybro US 6,948,398 B2 Sept. 27, 2005
Cummins US 2006/0040239 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
Beitel US 2007/0122778 A1 May 31, 2007

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–19 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–15, and 17–19 are rejected under pre–AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cummins and Beitel. Final Act.
5.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cummins, Beitel, and Dybro. Final Act. 11.
OPINION
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has erred in stating that
applicant’s claims are directed to methods only and the examiner has erred
in asserting that applicant’s claims do not contain patentable subject matter.”
Reply Br. 2. Because we agree with both of these assertions, we will not go
through the full analysis according to guidance provided by the Office.
Appeal 2020-005537
Application 14/285,017
4
Instead, we will merely explain how the Examiner has erred in the eligibility
analysis.
First, Appellant is correct that the Examiner has misidentified a
portion of the claims as method claims when they are actually apparatus
claims. Although this is not dispositive of the issue, it does, in this case,
have consequences for the Examiner’s analysis. By focusing on the method
steps alone, the Examiner has failed to, as Appellant states, consider the
entire context of the claims. The eligibility requirements of section 101 are
not a complete bar to the claiming of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the mere
identification of a claim containing an abstract idea does not end the
analysis. An abstract idea may still be eligible for patent protection as long
as certain criteria are met, such as, for example, incorporating the abstract
idea into a practical application.
Here, although there may be certain abstract ideas contained within
the claims, the Examiner has not sufficiently considered the invention as a
whole, which is that of a driving simulator. As Appellant points out,
“applicant claims that the adaptive training system has ‘a plurality of input
devices…at least one…being a steering wheel…a brake pedal.’” Reply Br.
2–3. As such, the invention involves much more than an abstract idea, and
is actually a driving simulator for use by a trainee in which the trainee sits in
a simulated cockpit of a vehicle and simulates various driving scenarios in
order to test the ability to drive under various conditions that may require
further training depending on the trainee’s capabilities. The Examiner does
not adequately address the general environment in which the purported
abstract idea operates.
Here, the driver/trainee runs through a simulated driving scenario and,
in an exemplary instance, if he/she operates the vehicle outside of a stated
Appeal 2020-005537
Application 14/285,017
5
set of parameters, then the simulator switches from simulation mode to
training mode. The Examiner focuses on such aspects as the data
manipulation and display, rather than on the entirety of the claims, which
place those aspects into the concrete world of a driving simulator. The
driving simulator must still act as a typical driving simulator by loading and
running a scenario, responding to the user’s success in navigating the
scenario, etc., and including interactive hardware, such as displays and
inputs (including a steering wheel, gas and brake pedals, etc). We do not
consider the basic components of a driving simulator to be patent ineligible,
so long as they are what would commonly be found in many apparatuses
commonly involved in patent applications.
For example, related U.S. Patent No. 8,469,711 discloses a patented
driving simulator likely contemplated by Applicant into which the current
mode of operation is to be incorporated. Such a simulator includes all of the
physical components required to operate a simulator and involves, as do the
claims, a user operating the simulator according to the presented scenario.
The simulator reacts to the user’s inputs and adjusts accordingly.
Appellant’s claims merely take such a simulator and use the method
identified by the Examiner as an abstract idea to operate it in a way that
Appellant asserts is novel. The Examiner must not merely focus on the
identified abstract idea, but also the full context in which the abstract idea is
implemented. Here, we agree with Appellant that the context does not
amount to mere data manipulation, but is such that it incorporates the
abstract idea into a practical application, namely the overall context of a
driving simulator. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s section
101 rejection.
Obviousness
Appeal 2020-005537
Application 14/285,017
6
As to the Examiner’s prior art rejection, Appellant asserts “that
Cummins provides only feedback after a simulation segment and not
interactive training and Beitel clearly provides simulation and training
segments in a fixed sequence.” Reply Br. 5. Although the Examiner is
correct that Cummins provides feedback, the feedback is of the type known
in the art in that Cummins “suspends simulations and provides ‘immediate
feedback’ to the user when the user performs dangerous or life-threatening
action.” Cummins ¶ 105. In other words, all Cummins does is inform the
trainee that their response to the simulation was improper and involved
dangerous driving. No training is performed in response to the driver’s
performance.
Appellant is correct that Beitel does not remedy this lack of training
because Beitel’s training is merely a scripted sequence of simulation and
training regardless of the trainee’s performance during the simulation. The
Examiner has not made the requisite link between Beitel’s training and
anything actually done by the trainee during the simulation, and because
Cummins involves only notification of a failed simulation, there is no
motivation to include Beitel’s scripted training in response to the trainee’s
performance. For example, a combination of Beitel and Cummins would
likely result in two scenarios. In a first scenario, the trainee would run
through the simulation successfully and not receive any feedback regarding
failed performance before training would ensue. In a second scenario, the
trainee would fail at some point during the simulation, the simulation would
end, and the trainee would again be presented with the training. In this
second scenario, the training in Beitel is not prompted by any performance
by the trainee, but is simply automatically presented at the conclusion of the
simulation.
Appeal 2020-005537
Application 14/285,017
7
Additionally, the claims require a specific training to occur in
response to the specific failure demonstrated by the trainee. As Appellant
points out, “applicant’s claims include training segments that relate to each
possible issue and applicant’s claimed system selects the appropriate training
segment based upon the issue that occurred during the simulation segment.”
Reply Br. 7. In the scripted environment of Beitel, the trainee would only
receive whatever scripted training is programmed to follow the simulation.
In the claimed invention, the training provided “is related to the issue on the
graphics display.” Neither Cummins nor Beitel teaches this specifically
related training in response to the issue encountered during the simulation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–8,
10–15, 17–
19
103(a) Cummins, Beitel 1, 2, 4–8,
10–15, 17–
19
16 103(a) Cummins, Beitel, 16
1, 2, 4–8,
10–19
101 Ineligibility 1, 2, 4–8,
10–19
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–19

REVERSED