Ex Parte Basir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 2019

14055407 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/055,407 10/16/2013 26096 7590 02/15/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Otman A. Basir 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 60449-248 PUSl 4709 EXAMINER THOMAS, ANA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2019 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OTMAN A. BASIR, WILLIAM BEN MINERS, and SEYED HAMIDREZA JAMAL! Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 1 Technology Center 3600 Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated September 11, 2015, rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 Intelligent Mechatronic Systems Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter relates to a vehicle monitoring system. Spec. ,r 3. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A vehicle monitoring system comprising: at least one sensor in the vehicle, the at least one sensor recording performance of the vehicle; and a processor receiving data from the at least one sensor, the processor classifying the data from the at least one sensor as an event in one of a plurality of classifications, the processor associating at least one parameter with the event within the one of the plurality of classifications. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-10 and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Lin (US 2010/0209892 Al, published Aug. 19, 2010). 2. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Lin and Breed (US 2003/0009270 Al, published Jan. 9, 2003). 2 2 In the Final Office Action, under the heading "Claim Rejections - 35 USC Â§ 103," the Examiner stated: "Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(l) as being anticipated by Lin ... in view of Breed." Final Act. 8. Given the heading and the reliance on Lin and Breed, we view the references to section 102 and anticipation as typographical errors. 2 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 - Claims 1-10 and 13-18 A. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, and 13-17 Appellant presents certain arguments asserting the patentability of all claims as a group based on language in independent claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 3. Because Appellant provides separate arguments for claim 6 (and claim 18, which depends therefrom) (see infra Rejection 1 Â§ B) and claim 8 (see infra Rejection 1 Â§ C), but does not provide separate arguments for other claims in this rejection, the analysis of the arguments directed at all claims determines the outcome for claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, and 13-17. For this group, we select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, and 13- 1 7 standing or falling with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) (2015). The Examiner found that Lin discloses each limitation in claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4. Among those limitations, claim 1 recites, "the processor classifying the data from the at least one sensor as an event in one of a plurality of classifications."3 Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.). Appellant first argues that "Lin is concerned with characterizing the skill of the driver, not classifying events." Id. at 3. The Examiner responds that, in paragraph 80 of Lin, "the following is a list of the disclosed characteristic maneuver[ s ]/ event[ s,] which 'include, but are not limited to, vehicle headway control, vehicle launching, highway on/off-ramp maneuvers, steering-engaged maneuvers, which may be further separated into curve-handling maneuvers, lane changes, left/right turns, U- turns, etc."' Ans. 3 ( quoting Lin ,r 80); see also Final Act. 3 ( citing Lin ,r 80 3 We will refer to this as the "classifying" limitation. 3 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 for the "classifying" limitation). According to the Examiner, "based on at least this paragraph, Lin's characteristic maneuvers are equivalent to Appellant['s] claimed events (see instant application paragraph [0019] for the list of Appellant's driving events)." Ans. 3--4; see also Spec. ,r 19 (listing for example "Right tum " "Left tum " "Roundabout " "Lane ' ' ' ' ' change," "U-tum," "Accelerating up an onramp," "Decelerating down an offramp"). The Examiner states that, in paragraph 155, "Lin discloses the concept of 'maneuver index' which is equivalent to the claimed classification" and the Examiner identifies Figure 18 in Lin as "best illustrat[ing] Lin's maneuver indexing/classification." Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, in Lin, a "plurality of maneuvers are being indexed/ classified." J d. Although Appellant is correct that the system in Lin does assess driver skill (see, e.g., Lin ,r 2), the disclosures relied upon by the Examiner (as summarized above) adequately support the finding that Lin also discloses the "classifying" limitation. Further supporting the Examiner's finding, paragraph 80 of Lin also discloses ( 1) that "the type of maneuvers conducted by the driver need to be identified," (2) that "[t]he maneuver identification processor 46 identifies various types of characteristic maneuvers performed by the driver," and (3) that "[ w ]hen the maneuver identification processor 46 identifies a particular type of maneuver of the vehicle 10, it will output a corresponding identification value to the data selection processor 48."4 Lin ,r 80. And paragraph 155 of Lin, relied on by the Examiner, also discloses 4 Throughout this Decision, we omit any bolding of reference numerals in quotations from Lin. 4 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 that "[ v ]ehicle data from a vehicle 332 is collected to be qualified and identified by a maneuver qualification and identification processor 334." Id. ,r 155. Moreover, Lin discloses that the "skill classification processor" in Figure 18 ( described in paragraph 15 5) can be used in the system in Figure 3, described in paragraph 80. Id. ,r 28. These disclosures provide further support for the Examiner's finding. For these reasons, we are not apprised of error by Appellant's first argument. In addition to the "classifying" limitation, claim 1 also recites "the processor associating at least one parameter with the event within the one of the plurality of classifications."5 Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.). The Examiner cited various disclosures of Lin, including a passage disclosing: Vehicle data from a vehicle 332 is collected to be qualified and identified by a maneuver qualification and identification processor 334. Once the data is qualified and the maneuver is identified [then] a maneuver index and parameter processor 3 3 6 creates an index and further identifies relevant parameters .... Final Act. 3--4 ( emphasis added and omitted) ( quoting Lin ,r 155) ( citing, in addition, Lin ,r,r 170, 173, 240, 243-245, 288). Appellant argues that Lin does not disclose the "associating" limitation. Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant, "Lin identifies a maneuver ( maneuver identification processor 46) but this is not a parameter related to the 'data selection processor 48. "' Id. Appellant has not adequately explained, however, how this argument is commensurate in scope with claim 1 or how it shows error in the Examiner's findings as to the "associating" limitation. For example, as the "parameter" in the limitation at issue, the Examiner does not identify the "various types of characteristic 5 We will refer to this as the "associating" limitation. 5 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 maneuvers" identified by processor 46 in Lin (see, e.g., Lin ,r 80). Instead, the Examiner identifies the "parameters" expressly disclosed in paragraph 155 of Lin. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4. Next, Appellant argues that "the 'parameters' in Lin are only for the purpose of 'reconstruction' of the intended path." Appeal Br. 3; see also Lin ,r 155 ("Once the data is qualified and the maneuver is identified, a maneuver index and parameter processor 3 3 6 creates an index and further identifies relevant parameters for the purpose of reconstruction of the intended path." (emphasis added)). This argument does not apprise us of error. Appellant does not argue that the "parameters" disclosed in Lin are not a "parameter" as recited in claim 1. Although Lin does disclose that the "parameters" are "for the purpose of reconstruction of the intended path" (Lin ,r 155), Appellant has not explained why such "parameters" would fall outside the scope of the "associating" limitation. Moreover, Appellant does not propose a construction for the term "parameter" and has not challenged the Examiner's construction of "parameter" as "any item of data" (Ans. 4), which we determine is supported by the Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 24 ("Parametric representation of classified driving events to explicitly associate relevant parameters to the event itself. Examples of these parameters include the 'aggressiveness' of an aggressive lane change, the 'hardness' of a hard cornering event, and the 'smoothness' of a trip."), ,r 25 (discussing how "most parameters describe the level of severity of the event"); see also Ans. 3 ( stating that "there are no limitations in claim 1 regarding ... what constitutes a parameter"). 6 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 4), in paragraph 155, Lin discloses ( 1) that "[ o ]nee the data is qualified and the maneuver is identified ... [,] parameter processor 336 creates an index and further identifies relevant parameters ... " and (2) that the potential "parameters" include "lateral acceleration the vehicle experienced through the maneuver, vehicle speed, [and] steering excursion," among others. Based on these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner's determination that Lin satisfies the "associating" limitation in that "Lin associate [ s] at least one parameter such as 'lateral acceleration the vehicle experienced through the maneuver, vehicle speed and steering excursion' to the[] characteristic maneuver/event." Ans. 4. For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, and 13-17 fall with claim 1. B. Claims 6 and 18 Claim 6 (which depends from claim 1 via claim 5) requires that "the processor is programmed to compare data from the accelerometer and the vehicle speed sensor to determine a type of road on which the vehicle is travelling." Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). For the "accelerometer" and "vehicle speed sensor," the Examiner relied on Lin's disclosure that "sensor suite 42 is intended to include one or more of ... a vehicle speed sensor ... accelerometer." Lin ,r 79, quoted at Final Act. 5 ( discussing claim 5). For the additional requirements of claim 6, the Examiner relied on Figure 7 of Lin and the disclosure of "road type determination processor 302 that receives sensor information from various sensors in the vehicle 10 that are suitable to provide roadway type." Lin ,r 109, quoted at Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that "Lin does not disclose comparing the data from the accelerometer and the vehicle speed sensor." Appeal Br. 3. 7 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 In response, the Examiner essentially repeats the disclosures from paragraphs 79 and 109 quoted above, and then states, "[h]ence, Lin's road type determination processor relates longitudinal accelerometer, lateral accelerometer, wheel speed sensors and vehicle speed sensor data for determining a road type" and states, "[t]herefore, taken together, Lin reads on th[e] limitation" of claim 6. Ans. 4--5. The record does not support the Examiner's position. Although Lin does disclose (1) the presence of the sensors required by claim 6 (Lin ,r 79) and (2) the use of "information/rom various sensors ... that are suitable to provide roadway type" (id. ,r 109 ( emphasis added)), the Examiner has not adequately explained how Lin discloses performing the "road type determination" (id.) by "compar[ ing] data from the accelerometer and the vehicle speed sensor" as recited in claim 6. See Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). In other words, the Examiner explains that Lin determines a road type by unspecified sensors, but does not explain why Lin's road type is determined by the claimed sensors specifically. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6, or the rejection of claim 18, which depends from claim 6. C. Claim 8 Claim 8 ( which depends from claim 1) requires that "the at least one sensor is a three-axis accelerometer" and that "the processor is programmed to evaluate the data from the three-axis accelerometer to determine unbalanced wheels of the vehicle." Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). For claim 8, the Examiner relied on Lin's disclosure of "vehicle side- slip" in paragraph 2 89 and the disclosures, in paragraph 79, (1) of a "longitudinal accelerometer [and] lateral accelerometer" and (2) that 8 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 "various types of signal processing can be used by the processor 44." Final Act. 5---6. Appellant argues that "'[u]nbalanced wheels' is a mechanical condition of the vehicle" and that "Lin only discloses 'vehicle side-slip,' which is not related to unbalanced wheels." Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner responds that "claim 8 does not clearly specify how the wheels are unbalanced" and states that "unbalanced wheels" in claim 8 is interpreted "as [a] form of a wheel slippage during a vehicle side-slip." Ans. 5. In reply, Appellant contends that "[ v ]ehicle side-slip and unbalanced wheels are two completely different things." Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that "[ a ]n unbalanced wheel relates to the distribution of weight around the circumference of the wheel, which can cause the car to shudder and vibrate at certain speed." Id. at 2-3. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and the claim language is read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bond, 910 F .2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, the Examiner has applied an unreasonably broad construction of "unbalanced wheels." Appellant's position as to the meaning of that term is supported by the Specification, which, for example, provides: "Unbalanced or misaligned wheels can be detected through either the subtle vibrations of the vehicle at specific speeds, or through the tendency of the vehicle to tum left or right without external input (i.e. in the absence of driver steering corrections)." Spec. ,r 44. On the other hand, the Examiner offers no evidence or technical argument in support of the position that side slip is the 9 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 same as an unbalanced wheel. Accordingly, we determine the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "unbalanced wheels" includes the relied-upon "vehicle side-slip." Lin ,r 289. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8. Rejection 2 - The rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 USCÂ§ 103 A. Claim 11 Claim 11 depends from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). Appellant does not provide additional arguments for claim 11 aside from those presented for claim 1. For the reasons discussed above, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 1. See supra Rejection 1 Â§ A. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. B. Claim 12 Claim 12 ( which depends from claim 1) requires that "the processor is programmed to adapt the plurality of classifications based upon data from a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle." Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). For the additional requirements of claim 12, the Examiner initially relied on Figure 5 of Breed as well as Breed's disclosure, in paragraph 372, of the "transmission of ... data from a vehicle to another vehicle or to a facility remote from the vehicle." Final Act. 8-9. 6 6 The Examiner did not provide a reason to modify Lin based on the identified aspects of Breed. See, e.g., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1303---04 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,401 (2007)) ("But it is not enough to simply show that the references disclose the claim limitations; in addition, 'it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the 10 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 Appellant argues that "the Examiner really only alleges that Breed discloses transmitting data from one vehicle to another" and contends that "[ n ]either Lin nor Breed disclose[ s] 'adapting the plurality of classifications based upon data from a plurality of vehicles ... [.]"' Appeal Br. 4. In response, the Examiner states that Breed "was used to support the concept of vehicle-to-vehicle communication," but also states that, in paragraph 77, Lin discloses "the concept of vehicle-to-vehicle communication." Ans. 6. The Examiner also quotes the disclosure, in paragraph 81 of Lin, that "maneuver identification processor 46 identifies characteristic maneuvers based on any combination of ... vehicle-to- infrastructure/vehicle communication." Lin ,r 81, quoted at Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, "Lin's disclosed communication system 26 that 'provides communications between vehicle 10 and other ... vehicles [ see para. 0077]' and the fact that the [']maneuver identification processor 46 uses any combination ... [ of] vehicle-to-infrastructure/vehicle communication['] describes this claimed limitation." Ans. 6 ( quoting Lin The record does not support the Examiner's position. We agree with Appellant that the relied-upon disclosures in paragraph 81 of Lin "at most ... suggest that the maneuver identification may be based upon some information from another vehicle." Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis added). As noted by Appellant, claim 12, however, "requires that the plurality of classifications themselves are adapted based upon data from a plurality of vehicles." Id. ( emphasis added). The Examiner has not explained how the elements as the new invention does."'). 11 Appeal 2017-006411 Application 14/055,407 prior art renders obvious "adapt[ing] the plurality of classifications," as required by claim 12. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12. DECISION We affirm the decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l ), we reverse the decision to reject claims 6, 8, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l), we affirm the decision to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), and we reverse the decision to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv); 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 12