Advanced Training System LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 1, 20212020005537 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation