Ex Parte Dellantoni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

14714761 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

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.
14/714,761 05/18/2015 Nikolaus Dellantoni MAG04 P-2560 3121
15671 7590 02/02/2018
Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Ondersma LLP
2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE, Suite 207
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
EXAMINER
DULEY, JANESE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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):
clark@gardner-linn.com
patents @ gardner-linn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIKOLAUS DELLANTONI, BERNHARD SCHINKOWITSCH,
ANDRE SCHOENEKAES, AXEL NIX, and NIALL R. LYNAM
Appeal 2017-007502
Application 14/714,761
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Magna Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-007502
Application 14/714,761
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “processing systems that
process inputs from various sensors and control various vehicular systems
and accessories in response to such inputs.” Spec. ^ 2. Claim 1, which is
illustrative of the claimed invention, reads as follows:
1. A vehicular scalable integrated control system for a
vehicle, said vehicular scalable integrated control system
comprising:
a plurality of cameras having respective fields of view
exterior of the vehicle;
said plurality of cameras comprising a front camera
disposed at the front of the vehicle, a rear camera disposed at the
rear of the vehicle, a first side view camera at the left side of the
vehicle and a second side view camera at the right side of the
vehicle;
wherein said front camera, said rear camera, said first side
view camera and said second side view camera are part of a
surround vision system of the vehicle;
a vehicular scalable integrated control unit, wherein said
vehicular scalable integrated control unit comprises an image
processor, and wherein image data captured by said plurality of
cameras is processed by said image processor of said vehicular
scalable integrated control unit;
a display screen for displaying video information to a
driver of the vehicle, and
wherein said display screen displays video images
derived, at least in part, from image data captured by at least one
of said plurality of cameras;
wherein said vehicular scalable integrated control system
is operable to fuse image data captured by at least one camera of
said plurality of cameras with data captured by at least one of (i)
2
Appeal 2017-007502
Application 14/714,761
a radar device, (ii) an ultrasonic sensor and (iii) an infrared
sensor;
wherein said vehicular scalable integrated control system
is part of an overall active safety sensing system of the vehicle;
wherein said overall active safety sensing system includes
fusion of outputs from a plurality of sensing devices to achieve
environmental awareness at and surrounding the vehicle;
wherein said overall active safety sensing system is
operable to at least one of (i) at least partially control the vehicle
as the vehicle is driven along a road and (ii) provide alert
warnings to a driver of the vehicle;
wherein said vehicular scalable integrated control system
is operable to determine a current geographical location of the
vehicle and is operable to download mapping data associated
with the determined current geographical location of the vehicle;
wherein said vehicular scalable integrated control unit
includes a threat recognizer/evaluator and a risk assessor; and
wherein threat recognition/evaluation by the threat
recognizer/evaluator and risk assessment by the risk assessor of
said vehicular scalable integrated control unit of said overall
active safety sensing system is responsive, at least in part, to (i)
processing by said image processor of image data captured by at
least one camera of said plurality of cameras and (ii) said
mapping data associated with the determined current
geographical location of the vehicle.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
Schofield US 2005/0179527 A1 Aug. 18,20052
2 Although the heading of the rejection cites to the issued patent (Schofield
et al.; US 7,205, 904 B2; issued Apr. 17, 2007), the Examiner cites to the
corresponding printed patent application publication in the body of the
3
Appeal 2017-007502
Application 14/714,761
Uhlmann US 2007/0118280 A1 May 24, 2007
Jan. 10, 2008
Feb. 21,2008
Mar. 15,2012
May 10, 2006
Yuasa US 2008/0007618 A1
Breed US 2008/0046150 A1
Lynam
Toshihiro
US 2012/0062743 A1
JP 2006-270586
Rejections
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yuasa, Schofield,
and Uhlmann.* * 3 Final Act. 3-12.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yuasa, Schofield, Uhlmann, and
Lyman. Final Act. 12.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yuasa, Schofield, Uhlmann, and
Toshihoro. Final Act. 13.
Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yuasa, Schofield, Uhlmann, and
Breed. Final Act. 14-15.
rejection. See Final Act. 3-15. Additionally, Appellants and the Examiner
cite to the printed patent application publication in the Briefs and the
Examiner’s Answer, respectively. To avoid confusion, we likewise cite to
the printed patent application publication.
3 Although the heading of the rejection omits claim 16 (see Final Act. 3), the
Examiner addresses claim 16 in the body of the rejection (see Final Act. 11).
We find the omission to be harmless error and treat the rejection as including
claim 16.
4
Appeal 2017-007502
Application 14/714,761
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of the
combination of Yuasa, Schofield, and Uhlmann teaches or suggests
wherein threat recognition/evaluation by the threat
recognizer/evaluator and risk assessment by the risk assessor of
said vehicular scalable integrated control unit of said overall
active safety sensing system is responsive, at least in part, to (i)
processing by said image processor of image data captured by at
least one camera of said plurality of cameras and (ii) said
mapping data associated with the determined current
geographical location of the vehicle,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Schofield
teaches using captured images to perform threat assessment and determine a
potential collision. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Schofield, Fig. 2; 28-29). The
Examiner finds Uhlmann teaches using a vehicle’s current location to
determine the vehicle is approaching an upcoming intersection and sending a
database alert to the vehicle to alert the driver of a potential safety issue
(e.g., a train is approaching the upcoming intersection). Final Act. 6 (citing
Uhlmann, Figs. 1, 2A, 3, 5; 5, 11-12, 17, and 19-20). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes the cited references teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. Id.
Appellants contend the combination of Yuasa, Schofield, and
Uhlmann fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because the cited
references do not teach or suggest that the threat recognition/evaluation by
the threat recognizer/evaluator and risk assessment by the risk assessor of
the vehicular scalable integrated control unit of the overall active safety
5
Appeal 2017-007502
Application 14/714,761
sensing system is responsive, at least in part, to both (1) processing captured
image data and (2) mapping data associated with the determined current
geographical location of the vehicle. App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 6-7.
Particularly, Appellants argue Uhlmann does not teach that an alert,
transmitted to a vehicle to alert the driver that a train is approaching an
upcoming intersection, is responsive to downloaded mapping data, as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 19-20.
In response, the Examiner finds
[T]his feature upon which Appellant relies is not recited in
the rejected claim. The claim states “responsive at least in part,
to .. [sic]” Therefore the Appellant’s argument is not valid, as
this is not recited in the rejected claim, [the] claim language does
not define clearly what is part control unit is responsive to.
Ans. 22. We disagree.
Claim 1 expressly requires that threat recognition/evaluation by the
threat recognizer/evaluator and “risk assessment by the risk assessor of said
vehicular scalable integrated control unit of said overall active safety sensing
system is responsive, at least in part, to (i) processing by said image
processor of image data captured by at least one camera of said plurality of
cameras and (ii) said mapping data associated with the determined current
geographical location of the vehicle.” We agree with Appellants that
Uhlmann teaches providing an alert to the driver responsive to an alert signal
that is transmitted by the train to the vehicle either directly or indirectly via
database 16. Uhlmann 19. We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings
and find them insufficient to show that Uhlmann teaches or suggests
providing the alert signal responsive to mapping data associated with the
determined current geographical location of the vehicle, as required by claim
1. Accordingly, as we are constrained by the record we do not sustain the
6
Appeal 2017-007502
Application 14/714,761
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, independent claims 17 and 20, which recite
similar limitations, and claims 2-16, 18, and 19, which depend from claims
1 and 17.
As we find this issue to be dispositive, we do not reach the issues
raised by Appellants’ remaining contentions.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
7