Ex Parte LEI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 24, 2018

14847661 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/847,661 09/08/2015 28395 7590 10/26/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Oliver LEI 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. 83558120 6723 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGA X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2018 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLIVER LEI and ALLEN R. MURRAY Appeal2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 Technology Center 3600 Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the Applicant and identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's invention relates to "recommending power-saving vehicular utilization changes." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a processor configured to: receive a desired departure time and route for upcoming travel, from a vehicle computing system; determine a traffic level based on the received departure time and route; determine a vehicle charge level; and recommend a new departure time, based on a determination that the new departure time will result in faster travel time to a destination if the vehicle charge level is projected to be sufficient to achieve travel-completion based on the new route or departure time. REJECTIONS 1) Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Shimotani et al. (US 2013/0093393 Al, published Apr. 18, 2013) and Fisher et al. (US 2015/0127248 Al, published May 7, 2015). 2) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Caceres et al. (US 2015/0168169 Al, published June 18, 2015) and Fisher. 3) Claims 10-162 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by Fisher. 2 The Examiner's omission of claims 13-16 from the heading is considered a typographical error as claims 13-16 are discussed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 7-8. 2 Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 ANALYSIS Rejection 1 Claims 1-5 and 7-9 Claim 1 recites, in part, "a processor configured to ... recommend a new departure time, based on a determination that the new departure time will result in faster travel time to a destination." Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1 ). Appellant argues that Fisher's disclosure that an alternate route presents a time saving option is insufficient to establish that a new departure time will be faster, because Fisher "is silent as to any sort of determination on which this recommendation may be based." Appeal Br. 5. Appellant asserts that because Shimotani is not relied on for this limitation, the combined teachings of the references do not result in this limitation. Id. The Examiner responds that Fisher's disclosure that "the system may recommend an alternate route or departure time," combined with Fisher's additional disclosure that an alternate route saves time meets the claimed limitation. Ans. 2. In reply, Appellant reiterates that Fisher discloses that the alternate route saves time, but that "Fisher fails to teach that the alternative departure time bears a relation to 'faster travel time' as claimed." Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, the Examiner is making improper assumptions as to Fisher's disclosure of alternate departure times. Id. Appellant asserts that Fisher's disclosure of an alternate route is not interchangeable with an alternate departure time because an alternate departure time is based on a different data set and requires information about future traffic. Id. For the following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. 3 Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Here, Fisher discloses that for heavy traffic, "the system may recommend an alternate route or departure time." Fisher ,r 95. From this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that a recommendation of the alternate route or alternate departure time would have the same result, namely, avoiding or mitigating heavy traffic in order to save time. This is supported by Fisher's subsequent disclosure that the alternate route may present "a time saving option." Fisher ,r 96. Although we appreciate that different data is used to determine alternate routes and alternate departure times, we agree with the Examiner that because Fisher discloses routes and departure times as alternatives, given that one saves time, it is reasonable to infer that the other would as well. Moreover, because Fisher discloses that "travel time information [is] based on current and statistically projected traffic conditions" (Fisher ,r 48), Fisher discloses determining if a future, alternate departure time would avoid traffic. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably infer that the alternate departure time is based on a "faster travel time" as claimed. A preponderance of the evidence, thus, supports the Examiner's position. We have reviewed all of Appellant's arguments for the patentability of claim 1, but we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Shimotani and Fisher is sustained. As no other substantive arguments are set forth by Appellants, dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 fall with claim 1. 4 Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 Claim 6 The Examiner finds that paragraph 93 of Fisher discloses recommending a new charge start time if the projected vehicle charge level is projected to be insufficient to achieve travel-completion based on the new route or departure time. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that Fisher's paragraph 93 "relates to reserving a charging station spot, and says nothing of a new or differing [ charge start] time." Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that based on the disclosure in Fisher's paragraphs 93 and 95-96, it "is obvious the system enables to 'recommend a new charge start time if the projected vehicle charge level is projected to be insufficient to achieve travel-completion based on the new route or departure time."' Ans. 3. Appellant replies that it is unclear how Fisher's disclosure of reserving charging times and alternate route start times relates to recommending a new charge start time. Reply Br. 3. Appellant's arguments are persuasive because the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure where Fisher recommends a new charge start time as required by claim 6. As Appellants note, paragraph 93 of Fisher relates to "reserv[ing] charging time at the charging station," and paragraphs 95 and 96 of Fisher relate to a recommendation of an "alternate route or departure time" based on traffic. Fisher ,r,r 93, 95-96. The Examiner does not explain adequately how selecting a future date "for the charging reservation, along with a charging start time and duration" at an identified charging station (Fisher ,r 93) relates to an alternate route or departure time based on current, or impending traffic conditions (Fisher ,r,r 95-96) that 5 Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 would lead to a system recommending a new charge start time. As the rejection of claim 6 is based on erroneous factual findings, the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that "[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand."). We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Shimotani and Fisher. Rejection 2 Independent claim 1 7 contains a substantially similar limitation to that of claim 6 for the vehicle start charge time. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 3--4). The Examiner rejects claim 17 based on the same findings from Fisher for the vehicle start charge time as for claim 6. Final Act. 5---6; see also Ans. 3- 4. The Examiner does not rely on the disclosure of Caceres in any manner to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Fisher. Final Act. 5---6. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 for the same reasons as claim 6. Rejection 3 Independent claim 10 recites, in part, "determining a new departure time projected to result in encountering less traffic than travel over a received preferred route beginning at a received preferred departure time; and sending the new departure time to a user-device for confirmation." Appeal Br. (Claims App. 2). Appellant argues that Fisher: 1) does not teach or suggest "predicting traffic," 2) teaches an alternative route that results in time savings not "an alternative departure time that is projected to result in encountering less 6 Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 traffic," and 3) "does not give any actual reason for recommending an alternative departure time." Appeal Br. 8. Appellant asserts that Fisher is also silent about sending departure time data to a user-device, and does not disclose confirmation from the user. Id. at 9. The Examiner responds that Fisher discloses recommending a new departure time based on heavy traffic, and that a user can add a new departure time. Ans. 4 (citing Fisher ,r,r 79, 95-96). The Examiner notes that Fisher also discloses a client device that displays departure time. Id. ( citing Fisher ,r,r 65---66). According to the Examiner, based on these disclosures, Fisher "meets the scope of claim 10." Id. Appellant replies that because "even the implication of future traffic consideration is lacking in Fisher," the Examiner fails to establish that "Fisher is equipped, enabled or specifically teaches prediction of future traffic." Reply Br. 4. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive, because, as discussed above in Rejection 1, Fisher's disclosure that "travel time information [is] based on current and statistically projected traffic conditions" means that Fisher takes into account future traffic information. Fisher ,r 48. As also discussed above in Rejection 1, based on Fisher's disclosure that for heavy traffic, "the system may recommend an alternate route or departure time," one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that a recommendation of the alternate route or alternate departure time would avoid or mitigate traffic. Fisher ,r 95. By avoiding or mitigating traffic, Fisher's new departure time would "result in encountering less traffic," as required by claim 10. Appellants' argument that the system of Fisher does not send departure time data to a user-device, and does not receive confirmation from 7 Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 the user is also unavailing. As the Examiner correctly finds, Fisher discloses client device 11, such as a cell phone. See Fisher ,r,r 65---66; see also Ans. 4. Fisher also discloses that for each of "FIGS. 3-53, a smart phone or iPhone display screen is used" and that "application 20 is downloaded to a personal portable device, such as a mobile phone" so that the portable device can operate the application and "remotely control a component of the vehicle." Fisher ,r,r 74--75. Thus, Fisher's disclosure that "the system may recommend an alternate route or departure time" that is presented to the driver on a client application screen, means that the new route or departure time is sent to the user-device, as recited in claim 10. Fisher ,r,r 95-96; see also Ans. 4. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that sending the alternate route or departure time as a recommendation implies that the recommendation can either be accepted or rejected, i.e., that it can be confirmed by the user. Claim 10 does not require the step of actual confirmation of the new departure time. See Spec. Fig. 5( confirmation occurs at step 509 after recommendation is sent to the user). Figure 51 of Fisher and its associated description, thus, meets the claim limitation because Fisher's recommended new departure time is sent for confirmation, i.e., either to be accepted or rejected by the user. We have reviewed all of Appellants' arguments for the patentability of claim 10, but we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 as anticipated by Fisher is sustained. As Appellant sets forth no other substantive arguments, dependent claims 11-16 fall with claim 10. 8 Appeal 2018-001231 Application 14/847,661 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-16 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6 and 17 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9