Ex Parte MaudererDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 201713370718 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation