Ex Parte Amselem

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2017

13623535 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2017)

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.
13/623,535 09/20/2012 Jacques Amselem ALLIANZ 1 4880
6980 7590 08/16/2017
TROUTMAN SANDFRS T T P
EXAMINER
600 Peachtree Street PHAM, QUANG
Suite 5200
Atlanta, GA 30308 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2017 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):
j im. schutz @ troutmansanders .com
ryan. schneider@ troutmansanders.com
patents @ troutmansanders. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACQUES AMSELEM
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,5351
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—18, and 21—23. Claims 3,19, and 20
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies Allianz Telematics S.P.A. as the real party in interest.
(Br. 4.)
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to on-board
data collecting telematics units for vehicles. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An on-board unit for vehicles comprising:
data collection means for collecting vehicle usage data;
data transmission means for transmitting collected vehicle
usage data and/or analyzed vehicle usage data derived therefrom,
to a telematics service platform;
driver identification means for identifying a driver using
the vehicle and providing a driver identification;
a controller for controlling the transmission of the
collected and/or analyzed vehicle usage data to the telematics
service platform in response to the provided driver identification;
and
prioritizing means for prioritizing the collected and/or
analyzed vehicle usage data to be transferred, wherein the
prioritizing means determines on the basis of data characteristics
when and/or what data are transferred;
wherein the driver identification means includes a
plurality of peripheral elements of different types for entering,
detecting and/or receiving different identification data for
determining the driver identification on the basis of different
identification data, the different peripherals being integrated in a
common component to be installed in a vehicle’s passenger
compartment; ’
wherein the controller includes adjustment means for
adjusting the function and identification criteria of a first one of
the plurality of peripheral elements in response to the result of
the driver identification determined by a second one of the
plurality of peripheral elements and/or for adjusting the function
and identification criteria of the second one of the plurality of
peripheral elements in response to the result of the driver
2
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
identification determined by the first one of the plurality of
peripheral elements;
wherein the driver identification means include voice
recognition means for recognizing a driver’s voice and
determining the driver identification therefrom, and a wireless
data receiver for wireless data reception of identification data
stored on a data storage element carried by the vehicle’s driver
and determining the driver identification from such wireless
received identification data, wherein the different peripheral
elements include a microphone for inputting audio data for the
voice recognition and the wireless data receiver for receiving the
stored identification data, wherein the common component is a
voice box including both the microphone and the wireless data
receiver; and
wherein the controller is adapted to control the
transmission of the collected and/or analyzed vehicle usage data
to the telematics service platform in response to the recognized
driver’s voice as well as in response to the data received from the
data storage element.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—2, 4—6, and 13—14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Berstis (US 6,198,996 Bl, issued Mar. 6,
2001), Lang (US 6,502,020 B2, issued Dec. 31, 2002), Morita et al. (US
2007/0124599 Al, pub. May 31, 2007), and Anke et al. (US 2007/0153802
Al, pub. July 5, 2007). (Non-Final Act. 6—24.)
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Anke, and Roberts (US
2013/0036200 Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2013). (Non-Final Act. 24-25.)
The Examiner rejected claims 8—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Anke, and Funahashi (EP 1239404
Al, pub. Sep. 11, 2002). (Non-Final Act. 25—41.)
3
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Alike, and Knockeart et al. (US
6,622,083 Bl, issued Sep. 16, 2003). (Non-Final Act. 41^42.)
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Alike, and Altieri et al. (US
US2012/0029945 Al, pub. Feb. 2, 2012). (Non-Final Act. 43^14.)
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Alike, Altieri, and Duckeck (US
2002/0152018 Al, pub. Oct. 17, 2002). (Non-Final Act. 4AA5.)
The Examiner rejected claims 17—18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Alike, and Watkins
(US 2005/0288827 Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2005). (Non-Final Act. 46-56.)
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Anke, Watkins, and Altieri.
(Non-Final Act. 56—58.)
The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Anke, Watkins, Altieri, and
Duckeck. (Non-Final Act. 58—59.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues:2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 29, 2016, “Br.”); the Non-
Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 26, 2015, “Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 30, 2016, “Ans.”) for the respective
details.
4
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
First Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Berstis, Lang, Morita, and Alike teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitation:
wherein the controller is adapted to control the
transmission of the collected and/or analyzed vehicle usage data
to the telematics service platform in response to the recognized
driver’s voice as well as in response to the data received from the
data storage element.
(Br. 15-16.)
Second Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Berstis, Lang, Morita, Anke, and Funahashi teaches or suggests the
independent claim 8 limitation:
wherein the controller includes adjustment means for
adjusting the function and identification criteria of a first one of
the plurality of peripheral elements in response to the result of
the driver identification determined by a second one of the
plurality of peripheral elements and for adjusting the function
and identification criteria of the second one of the plurality of
peripheral elements in response to the result of the driver
identification determined by the first one of the plurality of
peripheral elements.
(Br. 17-20.)
Third Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Anke, and Watkins teaches or suggests the
independent claim 17 limitation:
wherein the controller includes . . . transmission control
means for controlling the transmission to the telematics service
platform such that only the selected some of the collected and/or
analyzed vehicle usage data are transmitted together with the
determined driver identification. . . .
(Br. 21-22.)
5
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner errs. As to the rejection of claims 8—11, we
agree with Appellant. Otherwise, we disagree with Appellant’s arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act.
6—25, 41—59) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3—7, 11—12).
Issue One
For the claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Lang of a driving habit monitoring system in which client-side
software collects “movement information and uploads it constantly or at
selected intervals to the central computer,” after the driver initially logs into
the system and provides identification information. (Non-Final Act. 10—11;
Lang col. 4,11. 12—18, 52—59.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosures
of Berstis, Lang, Morita, and Anke as teaching or suggesting specific types
of driver identification, including voice identification and identification via
data received from a storage element, such as a smartcard. (Ans. 5.)
Appellant argues the data in Lang is not transmitted in response to
driver identification, because the data is transmitted “constantly or at
selected intervals,” separate from the disclosed initial user login
identification. (Br. 16.) This argument is unpersuasive because Lang at
least teaches or suggests that the data transmission only occurs after the
driver logs in and is identified. In particular, the data is transmitted in
response to driver identification, as required by the claim. (Ans. 4—5.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
Issue Two
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Morita of
authentication methods for use of a vehicle, one embodiment of which uses a
coded vehicle key or RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tag as the first
stage of an identification process, and biometric identification (e.g., a
fingerprint sensor) as a second stage, with the “rejection rate” of the
biometric sensor adjusted in accord with predefined conditions. (Non-Final
Act. 31—33; Morita Fig. 3, Tflf 29, 40-43, 64.) The Examiner also relies on
an alternative embodiment which uses two types of biometric identification
(e.g., face recognition and fingerprint scanning) to identify the driver, in
which the authentication level of the second biometric authentication is
changed in accordance with the matching rate of the first biometric
authentication. (Non-Final Act. 31—33; Morita Figs. 10, 11, H 57—63.)
Appellant argues that, at most, Morita teaches or suggests only one
part of the claim limitation at issue — i.e., “adjusting the function and
identification criteria of a first one of the plurality of peripheral elements in
response to the result of the driver identification determined by a second one
of the plurality of peripheral elements” (emphasis added) — but not the
second part of the claim limitation, where the roles of the first and second
peripheral elements are switched. (Br. 19.) As Appellant articulates the
issue: “Morita's vehicle key still does not [teach or suggest] adjusting the
function and identification criteria of voice recognition and data recognition
from a wireless data storage element in both directions, as is recited in
Claim 8.” (Id.)
In response, the Examiner concedes Morita only discloses the
adjustment in one direction, but finds that either identification method used
7
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
in Morita can be chosen as the first method, with the other method then
acting as the second method, and therefore “in that sense ... no matter
which one of the claimed ‘first’ and ‘second’ types of peripheral
identification elements is examined first in time, the one examined
subsequent in time would have its criteria adjusted in response accordingly,
as claimed.” (Ans. 9.) The Examiner further finds, “Such a scenario meets
the claimed ‘adjusting the function and identification criteria of voice
recognition and data recognition from a wireless data storage element in
both directions’ as Appellant argued.” (Ans. 10.)
We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Morita do not teach
or suggest the claim limitation at issue. Further, the Examiner’s “scenario”
covers one, or the other, of the two “directions” set forth in the claim
limitation, but not both. Regardless of which method of biometric
identification occurs first, it is used to adjust the second method, but is not in
turn adjusted by the second method. Likewise, the second method is
adjusted by the first method, but does not in turn adjust the first method.
The Examiner does not adequately explain how or why the disclosure of
Morita teaches otherwise.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 8.
Issue Three
In rejecting claim 17, the Examiner relies on the same disclosure in
Lang discussed above for claim 1, in which the disclosed monitoring system
uploads data “constantly or at selected intervals,” after the driver initially
logs into the system and provides identification information, which
8
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
identification information is also uploaded. (Non-Final Act. 49—50; Lang
col. 4,11. 12-18, 52-59.)
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because the movement
information and identification information are separately transmitted. (Br.
22.) This argument is unpersuasive as not commensurate with the
requirements of the claim. As the Examiner finds, both the identification
information and the movement information are transmitted “so that the
system can tell which information belongs to which user/driver.” (Ans. 11.)
Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, this satisfies the claim 17
requirement that the “collected and/or analyzed vehicle usage data are
transmitted together with the determined driver identification.”
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 over Berstis, Lang, Morita, and Anke, and of
independent claim 17 over Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Anke, and Watkins.
We also sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4—6, and 13—14
over Berstis, Lang, Morita, and Anke, of claim 7 over Berstis, Lang, Morita,
Anke, and Roberts, of claim 12 over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Anke, and
Knockeart, of claim 15 over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Anke, and Altieri, of
claim 16 over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Anke, Altieri, and Duckeck, of claims
18 and 23 over Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Anke, and Watkins, of claim 21
over Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Anke, Watkins, and Altieri, and of claim 22
over Berstis, Lang, Funahashi, Anke, Watkins, Altieri, and Duckeck, which
rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Br. 16—17, 22.)
9
Appeal 2017-002833
Application 13/623,535
Also for the reasons stated above, we reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 8 over Berstis, Lang, Morita, Anke, and Funahashi. We
also reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 9-11 over Berstis, Lang,
Morita, Anke, and Funahashi, which claims depend from claim 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, 4—7, 12—18, and
21-23.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10