www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/124,693
`
`09/09/2016
`
`SATOSHI NAKAYA
`
`PIPMB-56897
`
`2204
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`08’2””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`H0DGES~ SUSAN E
`
`2489
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/29/2019
`
`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):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/124,693
`Examiner
`SUSAN E HODGES
`
`Applicant(s)
`NAKAYA, SATOSHI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2489
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 21 December 2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—16 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) fl is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—7 and 15—16 is/are rejected.
`
`C] Claim(s) _
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11):] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)Ej objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)C] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)C] All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190822
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
`
`The petition decision filed on June 13, 2019 reinstating Claims 15 and 16 which were
`
`withdrawn from consideration in the office action mailed March 13, 2019 has been entered and
`
`made of record. Accordingly, Claims 1 — 16 are currently pending in the application with Claims
`
`8 — 14 being previously withdrawn.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation with
`
`regards to “first projection target” and “vehicle evaluation device” previously set forth in the Non—
`
`Final Office Action mailed October 17, 2018. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(a) rejection and the remaining 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the rejections
`
`are withdrawn.
`
`Applicant’s arguments see pages 9 and 10 with respect to the rejection of the claims have
`
`been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments
`
`follows below:
`
`Applicant argues on page 9 that “if the screen (in Bond reference) does not move, the image
`
`cannot be based on its movement. The additionally cited references fail to address this deficiency”
`
`with regards to amended Claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Bond teaches the screen
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 3
`
`(i.e. target) is configured only to move at the end of the evaluation, (Par. [0024], projecting virtual
`
`scenic imagery onto a respective screen portion), Bond was not relied upon for teaching moving
`
`the target during evaluation of vehicle. Mazur was relied upon for teaching this limitation in Fig.
`
`l and Fig. 2, Col. 3:47—51, the springs 90a and /or 90b or other accelerating force producing
`
`mechanism will cause the sled 50 (i.e. target) to move forward at a determinable preferably
`
`generally constant velocity. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the
`
`advantage of specifying a movable screen (i.e. target) as suggested by Mazur in order that a
`
`simulated object is stationary or slowly moved into the range (See Mazur, Col. 1:24—26).
`
`Accordingly, Bond in view of Mazur teaches the amended limitation, as claimed.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. ll2(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. ll2, 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.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the
`
`plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also
`
`commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when
`
`35 U.S.C. ll2(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. ll2, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 4
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1, claim limitations that meet the following three—
`
`prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
`
`“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non—structural term
`
`having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`
`language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means
`
`for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional
`
`language creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
`
`or pre—AIA 35 US .C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim
`
`limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that
`
`the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites
`
`function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited
`
`function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 5
`
`indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the
`
`word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`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 limitation(s) is/are:
`
`the evaluation device is configured to perform the evaluation processes more than once in
`
`claim 16.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding
`
`structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
`
`structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph limitation: page 19 lines 25 to page 20 line 2 describes a controller can execute the
`
`evaluation processes more than once “Evaluation controller 203 may execute the transmission of
`
`the evaluation start signal ($102), the evaluation environment control (8103 to $105), and the
`
`transmission of the evaluation end signal ($107) as one evaluation process, and can execute
`
`different evaluation processes more than once”. Therefore,
`
`the evaluation device has been
`
`interpreted as a controller.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 6
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 US C § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`(a) IN GENERAL.7The 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.
`
`Claim 16 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 7
`
`Amended Claim 16 recites the limitation “to monitor the images captured by the camera
`
`and the distances measured by the distance measurement sensor”. Nowhere in the specification is
`
`the term "monitor" referenced or defined. Hence, it is not found how, when or where, the images
`
`are monitored. The specification does not support the interpretation of monitor the images.
`
`Therefore, the claim language is not supported by the original disclosure and therefore
`
`constitutes new matter. (See also 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f), MPEP 608.04, 706.03(o)).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 USC. 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 2 — 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC. 112(b) or 35 USC. 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 pre—AIA the applicant regards as the
`
`invention.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, it recites the limitation “wherein the camera is mounted to the vehicle
`
`and the images captured by the camera are images around the vehicle”. This limitation is not
`
`clearly defined. It is unclear if the recitation of “images around the vehicle” refers to those
`
`originally recited image in independent claim 1 or if the images around the vehicle is a unique or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 8
`
`second set of images independent from the image projected by the projector. For examining
`
`purposes, the examiner has broadly interpreted the limitation.
`4
`Regarding Claim 2, it recites the limitation ‘Wherein the distances measured by the
`
`distance measurement sensor are distances from the vehicle to objects around the vehicle”. This
`
`limitation is not clearly defined. It is unclear if the recitation of “objects around the vehicle” refers
`
`to the previously recited images around the vehicle or the projected image in independent claim 1
`
`or even if the objects around the vehicle is a unique object and different object seen in a separate
`
`location from the images around the vehicle. For examining purposes, the examiner has broadly
`
`interpreted the limitation.
`
`Regarding Claims 3 — 7, they are rejected for the reasons above by virtue of their
`
`respective dependencies.
`
`Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “the evaluation device is configured to perform the
`
`evaluation processes more than once”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in
`
`the claim, since “an” evaluation device has not been previously recited. Although a vehicle
`
`evaluation device has been recited, the specification states on page 19 lines 25 to page 20 line 2
`
`that the evaluation controller (i.e. not the vehicle evaluation device) can execute the evaluation
`
`processes more than once “Evaluation controller 203 may execute the transmission of the
`
`evaluation start signal ($102),
`
`the evaluation environment control (8103 to $105), and the
`
`transmission of the evaluation end signal ($107) as one evaluation process, and can execute
`
`different evaluation processes more than once”. Therefore, for examining purposes, the Examiner
`
`has interpreted “the evaluation device is configured to perform the evaluation processes more than
`
`once” to mean “the evaluation—Me controller is configured to perform the evaluation processes
`
`more than once”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 9
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC.
`
`102 and 103 (or as subject to pre—AIA 35 USC. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
`
`statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art
`
`relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
`
`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.
`
`Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond (US
`
`2006/0042365 A1) referred to as Bond hereinafter, in view of Mazur et al. (US 6,023,984 A)
`
`referred to as Mazur hereinafter.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Bond teaches a vehicle evaluation device (Fig. 1, Par. [0024],
`
`apparatus 10 for testing or simulating driving of a motor car 12 whilst the car 12 remains
`
`stationary) comprising:
`
`a first projection target (Par. [0024], a viewing screen arrangement 20) wherein the first
`
`projection target (Par. [0024], scenic imagery onto a respective screen portion) is configured to
`
`move (Par. [0032], the computer 66 also controls operation of the actuators 36 for raising the front
`
`screen portion 28);
`
`a first projector (Par. [0024], projectors 22, 24, 26 of a visual display system) configured
`
`to project an image on the first projection target (Par. [0024], projector 22 projects images onto
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 10
`
`opposite front screen portion 28, projector 24 projects onto opposite side screen portion 32 and
`
`projector 26 projects onto opposite side screen portion 30); and
`
`a controller configured to control a position of the first projection target (Par. [0032],
`
`the computer 66 also controls operation of the actuators 36 for raising the front screen portion 28)
`
`and control the first projector to change the image projected (Par. [0035], the simulation
`
`software to deflect the virtual scenic imagery on viewing screen arrangement 20 (that is, the
`
`imagery on all of screen portions 28, 30 and 32) in synchronism with the steering movements of
`
`the driver thereby increasing the realism of the "surrounding" virtual reality environment) on the
`
`first projection target based on the position of the first projection target (Par. [0046], the
`
`simulation software is such as to drive the computer's image generator and thus the projectors 22,
`
`24, 26 to display on the viewing screen arrangement 20 realistic three—dimensional virtual front
`
`(on front screen portion 28) and side (on side screen portions 30 and 32) scenic imagery of front—
`
`on and passing scenery (i.e. changes the image) as though the driver was racing the car 12 (i.e.
`
`according to the position of the screens)).
`
`While Bond teaches projecting scenic imagery onto a respective screen portion, Bond does
`
`not specifically teach a moving screen (i.e. target) during evaluation of vehicle. Therefore, Bond
`
`fails to explicitly teach the target is configured to move during an evaluation of a vehicle.
`
`However, Mazur teaches the target is configured to move during an evaluation of a
`
`vehicle (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, Col. 3:47—51, the springs 90a and /or 90b or other accelerating force
`
`producing mechanism will cause the sled 50 (i.e. target) to move forward at a determinable
`
`preferably generally constant velocity).
`
`References Bond and Mazur are considered to be analogous art because they relate to
`
`vehicle evaluation. It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 11
`
`effective filing date would recognize the advantage of further specifying a movable target as
`
`suggested by Mazur in the invention of Bond which would provide a simulated object that is
`
`stationary or slowly moved into the range of the sensor (See Mazur, Col. 1:24—26).
`
`Claims 2 — 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond (US
`
`2006/0042365 A1), in view of Mazur (US 6,023,984 A), and in further view of Freiburger (US
`
`2014/0092249 A1) referred to as Freiburger hereinafter.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Bond in view of Mazur teaches Claim 1. Bond further teaches the
`
`controller is configured to control the position of the first projection target (Par. [0046], the
`
`simulation software is such as to drive the computer's image generator and thus the projectors 22,
`
`24, 26 to display on the viewing screen arrangement 20 realistic three—dimensional virtual front
`
`(on front screen portion 28) and side (on side screen portions 30 and 32) scenic imagery of front—
`
`on and passing scenery (i.e. changes the image) as though the driver was racing the car 12 (i.e.
`
`according to the position of the screens)) and to control the first projector based images
`
`captured by a camera (Par. [0040], the dynamometer 14 also includes a video monitoring system
`
`comprising video cameras 128); wherein the images captured by the camera are images
`
`around the vehicle (Par. [0040], video cameras 128 located to view the operation of the vehicle
`
`securing mechanism 48 and display the movement)
`
`While Bond teaches a camera (Par. [0040]), Bond does not specifically teach a camera
`
`mounted to the vehicle and a distance measurement sensor. Therefore, Bond in view of Mazur fails
`
`to explicitly teach a camera mounted to the vehicle and the images captured by the camera are
`
`images around the vehicle and a distance measurement sensor, wherein the distances measured by
`
`the distance measurement sensor are distances from the vehicle to objects around the vehicle.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 12
`
`However, Freiburger teaches a camera mounted to the vehicle (Fig. 5, Par.
`
`[0035]—
`
`[0036], Step 86 determine whether an object is in the peripheral field of view upon receiving (Step
`
`80) and processing the data and signals from the plurality of sensors (step 82) includes a rear sensor
`
`that has a back—up camera, a front sensor that has a front bumper radar sensor, and a side sensor
`
`that has a blind spot sensor) and the images captured by the camera are images around the
`
`vehicle (Fig. 4, Par. [0028], a perimeter detection module 54) and a distance measurement
`
`sensor (Par. [0023] the rear sensor 18 of the plurality of sensors, as shown in FIG. 1, includes a
`
`rear camera 34 and a rear set of radar sensors 36 that are configured to monitor a rear field of view
`
`38 substantially rearward the vehicle 12 for objects), wherein the distances measured by the
`
`distance measurement sensor are distances from the vehicle to objects around the vehicle
`
`(Par. [0036], the perimeter detection routine then proceeds to step 86 to determine whether an
`
`object is in the peripheral field of view using the sensors to monitor the peripheral field of view so
`
`that an object will be detected simply when generally any detectable object enters the peripheral
`
`field of view of the sensors or determine that an object is in the field of view when the object is
`
`within a set distance from the exterior 14 of the vehicle 12).
`
`References Bond, Mazur and Freiburger are considered to be analogous art because they
`
`relate to vehicle evaluation. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art before the effective filing date would recognize the advantage of further specify a camera
`
`mounted to the vehicle and distance measurement sensor as suggested by Freiburger in the
`
`inventions of Bond and Mazur for evaluating safety measures (See Freiburger, Par. [0038]).
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Bond in combination with Mazur and Freiburger teaches Claim 2.
`
`Bond further teaches the controller is further configured to transmit an evaluation start signal
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 13
`
`that notifies a start of evaluation to the vehicle (Par. [0046], a 1/4 mile drag race, which is
`
`automatically initiated as soon as the racing simulator 10 is set up for the drag race to begin) and
`
`then controls the first projector to begin the projection the image on the first projection
`
`target (Par. [0046], the simulation software is such as to drive the computer's image generator and
`
`thus the projectors 22, 24, 26 to display on the viewing screen arrangement 20 realistic three—
`
`dimensional virtual front (on front screen portion 28) and side (on side screen portions 30 and 32)
`
`scenic imagery of front—on and passing scenery (i.e. changes the image) as though the driver was
`
`racing the car 12 (i.e. according to the position of the screens)).
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Bond in combination with Mazur and Freiburger teaches Claim 2.
`
`Bond teaches the first projection target is configured to a direction in Which the vehicle
`
`installed at a predefined position (Fig. 1, Par.
`
`[0024], a viewing screen arrangement 20
`
`projecting virtual scenic imagery onto a respective screen portion), Bond does not specifically
`
`teach a moving screen (i.e. target) during evaluation of vehicle. Mazur further teaches the target
`
`is configured to move in parallel to a direction at a predetermined position would move (Fig.
`
`1 and Fig. 2, Col. 3:47—51, The springs 90a and /or 90b or other accelerating force producing
`
`mechanism will cause the sled 50 to move forward at a determinable preferably generally constant
`
`velocity). It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date would recognize the advantage of further specifying a movable target as suggested by Mazur
`
`in the invention of Bond which would provide a simulated object that is stationary or slowly moved
`
`into the range of the sensor (See Mazur, Col. 1:24—26).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 14
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Bond in combination with Mazur and Freiburger teaches Claim 2.
`
`Bond teaches the first projection target is configured to a direction in Which the vehicle
`
`installed (Fig. 1, Par. [0024], a viewing screen arrangement 20 projecting virtual scenic imagery
`
`onto a respective screen portion), Bond does not specifically teach a moving screen (i.e. target)
`
`during evaluation of vehicle. Mazur further teaches the target
`
`is configured to move
`
`perpendicular to a direction at the predetermined position (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, Col. 3:47—51,
`
`The springs 90a and /or 90b or other accelerating force producing mechanism will cause the sled
`
`50 to move forward at a determinable preferably generally constant velocity). It would have been
`
`obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the target in a
`
`perpendicular direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only
`
`routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This modification would provide a simulated
`
`object that is stationary or slowly moved into the range of the sensor (See Mazur, Col. 1:24—26).
`
`Regarding Claim 6, Bond in combination with Mazur and Freiburger teaches Claim 5.
`
`Bond further teaches the image of a guard rail (Par. [0046], the simulation software is such as to
`
`drive the computer's image generator and thus the projectors 22, 24, 26 to display on the viewing
`
`screen arrangement 20 realistic three—dimensional virtual front (on front screen portion 28) and
`
`side (on side screen portions 30 and 32) scenic imagery of front—on and passing scenery (i.e. would
`
`include a guard rail) as though the driver was racing the car 12) adjacent to a side face of the
`
`vehicle (Par. [0024], side screen portions 30, 32 that extend, respectively, a distance along each
`
`side of the motor car 12). Bond teaches the claimed limitation except does not explicitly recite the
`
`image includes a guard rail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 15
`
`the effective filing date to substitute one image for the other to achieve the predictable result of
`
`projecting a realistic image of objects around a vehicle (See Bond, Par. [0046]).
`
`Regarding Claim 7, Bond in combination with Mazur and Freiburger teaches Claim 2.
`
`Bond further teaches further comprising a wheel receiving base on which a wheel of the vehicle
`
`installed is placed and which is rotatable according to a rotation of the wheel (Fig. l and 2,
`
`Par. [0027], a platform 42 and includes supports in the form of pairs of rollers 44 for supporting
`
`and rotatably engaging the rear Wheels 46 and front Wheels 47 of the car 12).
`
`Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond (US
`
`2006/0042365 A1),
`
`in view of Mazur (US 6,023,984 A),
`
`in view of Freiburger (US
`
`2014/0092249 A1), and in further view of Allen et al. (US 7,461,939 B2) referred to as Allen
`
`hereinafter.
`
`Regarding Claim 15, Bond in combination with Mazur and Freiburger teaches Claim 2.
`
`Bond further teaches the first projection target includes a plurality of members (Par. [0024],
`
`there are three projectors 22, 24, 26 of the visual display system mounted on the frame 18, each
`
`for projecting virtual scenic imagery onto a respective screen portion, that is projector 22 projects
`
`images onto opposite front screen portion 28, projector 24 projects onto opposite side screen
`
`portion 32 and projector 26 (which is hidden in the FIG. 2 view) projects onto opposite side screen
`
`portion 30) configured to move in a vertical direction (Par. [0032] , the computer 66 also controls
`
`operation of the actuators 36 for raising the front screen portion 28), the controller is configured
`
`to control the position of the first projection target by controlling a height of the first
`
`projection target in the vertical direction (Par. [0032], the computer 66 also controls operation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 16
`
`of the actuators 36 for raising the front screen portion 28), the controller is configured to
`
`transmit