Ex Parte Mauderer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13370718 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
13/370,718 02/10/2012 Hans-Peter Mauderer 2000-0060 P08035US 4676
116844 7590
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 SW Broadway
Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
EXAMINER
LITTLEJOHN JR, MANCIL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-PETER MAUDERER
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—13, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to assisting a driver of a first vehicle
when a second vehicle is detected by a sensor of the first vehicle. The driver
of the first vehicle is informed that the second vehicle is at the side of the
first vehicle when the second vehicle leaves an area monitored by the sensor.
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
Claims 1 and 13 are exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics:
1. A method for assisting a driver of a first vehicle,
comprising:
detecting a second vehicle with a first sensor of the first
vehicle, wherein the sensor monitors a rear area behind the first
vehicle; and
annunciating to the driver of the first vehicle that the
second vehicle is at a side of the first vehicle in response to
detecting that the second vehicle has departed the rear area
monitored by the first sensor.
13. A device, comprising:
a first sensor configured to monitor a rear area behind a
first vehicle; and
a control unit coupled to the first sensor, the control unit
being configured to control an output device to annunciate to a
driver of the first vehicle that a second vehicle is at a lateral
side of the first vehicle when the first sensor detects the second
vehicle leaving the rear area in the absence of the first vehicle
comprising a side facing vehicle proximity sensor.
Claims 1—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Delcheccolo (US 6,784,828 B2; iss. Aug. 31, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—12
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 10-11; see
also Reply Br. 2-4) that Delcheccolo would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “annunciating to the
driver of the first vehicle that the second vehicle is at a side of the first
vehicle in response to detecting that the second vehicle has departed the rear
area monitored by the first sensor.”
2
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
The Examiner found that the interface of Delcheccolo corresponds to
the limitation “annunciating to the driver of the first vehicle.” (Final Act. 2.)
The Examiner further found that the multiple sensors of Delcheccolo, which
track target vehicles, correspond to the limitation “that the second vehicle is
at a side of the first vehicle in response to detecting that the second vehicle
has departed the rear area monitored by the first sensor.” (Final Act. 2—3.)
In particular, the Examiner found that
sensors 12—27 are in communication with the processor, in
communication with each other, and share information about
targets such that, if the first sensor detects the target vehicle in
the rear area and detects that the target vehicle accelerates to
move out of the rear area on a left side of the vehicle or a right
side of the vehicle, the first sensor provides this information to
the processor and to a second sensor that will next detect the
target vehicle.
{Id. (emphasis omitted).) We agree with the Examiner.
Delcheccolo relates to a near object detection (NOD) system that
includes multiple sensors for providing detection coverage in a
predetermined coverage zone (Abstract), for example, detecting an object in
the “blind spot” of a vehicle (col. 1,11. 21—23). Figure 1 of Delcheccolo
illustrates NOD system 10 for vehicle 11 (col. 3,11. 9—11), which includes
side-looking sensor (SLS) systems 16—22 (col. 3,11. 20—21) and human
interface 32 that “display[s] or otherwise communicate[s] (e.g. via audio or
other signals) information collected by the sensors 12—28 to a driver” (col. 4,
11. 21—24) (emphasis omitted). Figure 4 of Delcheccolo, which illustrates
vehicle 11 surrounded by targets 54 and 55 (col. 2,11. 55—57), is reproduced
below:
3
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
I I ............,,,.1,,. I. II I 'V” ........................ .III...... H|/
Figure 4
Figure 4 of Delcheccolo further illustrates that target 56, to the rear of
vehicle 11, is detected by antenna beams 58f—g from sensor 20. (Col. 7,
11. 54—61.) Similarly, Figure 4 of Delcheccolo illustrates that target 54, to
the side of vehicle 11, is detected by both sensors 18 and 20 by antenna
beams 58a—d and 51 f—g. (Id.) Thus, if target 56, to the rear of vehicle 11,
were to move into a new position to the side of vehicle 11, such target 56
would no longer be detected by antenna beams 58f—g from sensor 20, but
instead, target 56 would be detected by different antenna beams 58a—d and
57f—g from both sensors 18 and 20. Because when target 56 moves from the
rear to the side of vehicle 11, such target is detected by antenna beams 58 a—
d and 51 f—g, instead of antenna beams 58f—g, Figure 4 of Delcheccolo
teaches the limitation “the second vehicle is at a side of the first vehicle in
response to detecting that the second vehicle has departed the rear area
monitored by the first sensor.”
4
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
Appellant argues that “Delcheccolo uses a side sensor to detect that a
vehicle is at the side” (App. Br. 10), but
the method of claim 1 detects the second vehicle to the rear of
the first vehicle using the rear sensor, and when the rear sensor
of the first vehicle detects that the second vehicle has departed
the rear area it annunciates to the driver that the second vehicle
is now on the side of the first vehicle
{id. at 10-11). However, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in
scope with claim 1, because the claim does not exclude a side sensor.
Appellant further argues that “[n]one of the considerations [of
Delcheccolo] relates to annunciating that the second vehicle is at a side of
the first vehicle in response to detecting that the second vehicle has departed
the rear area” (Reply Br. 3 4) and “[t]here is no indication that said track
files play any role in annunciating that the second vehicle is at a side of the
first vehicle in response to detecting that the second vehicle has departed the
rear area monitored by the first sensor” {id. at 4). Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, as discussed previously, antenna beams 58\f—g from sensor 20
and different antenna beams 58a—d and 57/—g from both sensors 18 and 20
can detect if target 56 is at the rear of vehicle 11 or to the side of vehicle 11.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Delcheccolo would have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
“annunciating to the driver of the first vehicle that the second vehicle is at a
side of the first vehicle in response to detecting that the second vehicle has
departed the rear area monitored by the first sensor.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—9 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
5
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to this claim. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”). We sustain the rejection of
claim 10, as well as depend claims 11 and 12, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
Claim 13
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 9-10; see also
Reply Br. 8—9) that Delcheccolo would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 13, which includes the limitation “when the first sensor
detects the second vehicle leaving the rear area in the absence of the first
vehicle comprising a side facing vehicle proximity sensor.”
The Examiner acknowledged that the vehicle of Delcheccolo includes
side-looking sensor (SLS) systems, but concluded that “it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify Delcheccolo to not use the side facing vehicle proximity sensor to
simplify the system by using less parts.” (Final Act. 3.) In particular, the
Examiner concluded that “[ojmission of an element and its function is
obvious if the function of the element is not desired” (Ans. 3) and thus,
“[ojmission of the side facing vehicle proximity sensor disclosed by
6
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
Delcheccolo results in omitting the active detection of the target vehicle in
[side] zone 4 or [side] zone 2” {id. at 4). We do not agree.
In the “Background of the Invention” section, Delcheccolo explains
that “[t]o reduce the number of truck accidents, for example, sensor systems
or more simply ‘sensors’ for detecting objects around a truck have been
suggested” (col. 1,11. 24—26) and “it is necessary to provide a sensor capable
of accurately and reliably detecting objects in the path of the vehicle” (col. 1,
11. 30-32). Figure 1 of Delcheccolo illustrates vehicle 11, which includes
NOD system 10 such that “a plurality of detection zones 32-40 which form a
radar cocoon around the vehicle” and “different zones of the sensors 12-27
. . . provide different ones of the detection zones 32-40.” (Col. 5,11. 30-34.)
Moreover, Delcheccolo explains that “[providing the FLS [(forward-
looking sensor)] with advance information (e.g. the information that a
confirmed target will be entering its field of view from the right hand side of
the vehicle 11) may allow the FLS 12 to proceed to a target tracking process
without first performing target detection” (col. 7,11. 6—11) and “FLS 12 is
able to initiate . . . processes related to the engagement of defensive
measures including . . . pre-arming of air bags, automatic adjustment of
automatic cruise control (ACC) systems and pre-arming braking systems”
(col. 7,11. 29-33).
However, because Delcheccolo explains that accident avoidance can
be accomplished by forming a “radar cocoon” surrounding vehicle 11
(Fig. 2) and that providing FLS 12 with target information, including the
path of such target approaching from the side of vehicle 11, which results in
vehicle 11 executing defensive measures (e.g., pre-arming air bags, adjusting
cruise control, or pre-arming braking systems), the Examiner has not
7
Appeal 2016-006958
Application 13/370,718
demonstrated that omission of the side-looking sensor (SLS) systems and its
corresponding function would be desirable.
Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that
“Delcheccolo relies upon a side-looking sensor to provide information to the
front-looking sensor” and, thus, “Delcheccolo does not contain any teaching
or suggestion how the side-looking sensor could be dispensed with and still
provide the information to the front-looking sensor.” (App. Br. 9—10; see
also Reply Br. 8—9.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 13 is reversed.
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
8