Ex Parte NELSON et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 5, 2019

14813813 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/813,813 07/30/2015
28395 7590 03/07/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas NELSON
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.
83545025 1750
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, KELLY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS NELSON, DAVID ANTHONY HATTON,
HUSSEIN F. NASRALLAH, and THOMAS E. APCZYNSKI
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEP AN ST AI CO VICI, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-20, which are all of the
pending claims. Final Office Action (June 30, 2017, "Final Act."). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") is the applicant under
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
(December 3, 2017, "Appeal Br.") 1.
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
The Examiner rejected the claims as being either anticipated by, or
unpatentable over, the prior art. The Examiner also rejected one dependent
claim as being indefinite. Appellant does not contest the indefiniteness
rejection. As to anticipation, Appellant argues that the prior art fails to show
each element of the independent claims. As to obviousness, Appellant
argues that the rejection fails to provide adequate reasoning to combine the
features as proposed.
For the reasons explained below, we summarily sustain the
indefiniteness rejection and sustain the anticipation rejection as to some of
the pending claims. We do not sustain the anticipation rejection as to others
of the pending claims and do not sustain the obviousness rejection. Thus,
we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter on appeal relates to customizing a vehicle
infotainment system. Specification (July 30, 2015, "Spec.") ,r 1. A vehicle
infotainment system is used to provide features and functions including
navigation information and music to an occupant of a vehicle. Id. ,r 2. The
system provides settings to allow configuration of the features and functions
based on occupants' preferences. Id. The system may receive additional
features and functions from a connected device such as a smartphone. Id.
,r 3. The claims relate to a vehicle computing system configured to prepare
vehicles settings for features and functions of the vehicle infotainment
system based on a calendar entry associated with an occupant. Id. ,r 15.
Claims 1, 13, and 1 7 are the independent claims. Claims 1 and 13 are
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below with
the disputed limitations shown in italics for emphasis.
2
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
1. A vehicle system comprising:
a processor in communication with a first nomadic
device and programmed to:
receive calendar information from the first nomadic
device;
parse the calendar information for a calendar entry based
on a predefined time window;
adjust, by the processor, a vehicle setting for a vehicle
feature associated with one or more categorized items
correlated with the calendar entry;
communicate with a second nomadic device based on a
unique user identification retrieved from the one or more
categorized items; and
parse calendar information of the second nomadic device
for the vehicle setting.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 1.
13. A vehicle configuration method comprising:
recognizing, via a vehicle system, an occupant based on
communication with a nomadic device;
requesting a calendar entry from the nomadic device
based on a predefined time window;
in response to the calendar entry, parsing a categorized
item;
transmitting a request for information related to the
categorized item; and
in response to receiving the information, presenting a
message via a vehicle display to accept adjustment of a vehicle
setting.
Id. at 2-3.
3
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
2. Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(2) as anticipated by Rai (US 2016/0167608 Al, published
June 16, 2016). 2
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rai
and Demeniuk (US 2014/0164559 Al, published June 12, 2014).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § l l 2(b)
The Examiner rejected claim 12 as indefinite because the recitation
"the nomadic device" lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Final Act. 2.
Appellant does not rebut, or even mention, this ground of rejection in the
Appeal Brief. Because Appellant presents no arguments contesting this
rejection, we summarily sustain it.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12
Independent Claim 1 recites a processor of a vehicle system that is
programmed to receive and parse calendar information from a first nomadic
device for a calendar entry and adjust a vehicle setting for a vehicle feature
associated with one or more categorized items correlated with the calendar
entry. The processor also is programmed to communicate with a second
nomadic device based on a unique user identification retrieved from the one
2 The Final Office Action mistakenly includes canceled claim 11 in the
statement of this ground of rejection. Final Act. 3.
4
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
or more categorized items. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 1. Appellant
argues that this claim language requires use of calendar information from the
first nomadic device to obtain calendar information from the second
nomadic device. Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellant, the claim requires
the processor to communicate with the second nomadic device based on a
unique user identification retrieved from one or more categorized items
obtained from parsing the calendar information retrieved from the first
nomadic device. Id.
The Office "determines the scope of claims ... not solely on the basis
of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction 'in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We first examine the claim language.
Claim 1 requires a processor programmed to "communicate with a
second nomadic device based on a unique user identification retrieved from
the one or more categorized items." Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 1. The
"one or more categorized items" refers to "one or more categorized items
correlated with the calendar entry" of the first nomadic device. Id. Thus,
according to the claim language itself, the unique user identification used to
communicate with the second nomadic device is related to information
parsed from the calendar entry retrieved from the first nomadic device.
This understanding is consistent with the description in Appellant's
Specification. Appellant's Specification provides an example of the claimed
subject matter with reference to Figure 4. As described in the Specification,
Figure 4 illustrates display 4 configured based on a calendar entry that has
5
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
been retrieved from a first nomadic device and parsed for calendar entry
information. Spec. ,i,i 49-50. The processor identifies one or more
categories based on the parsed calendar entry and displays selectable list
entries 404-A through 404-D at display 4. Id. ,i,i 50-51. In the example of
Figure 4, the calendar entry is "Lunch Date with Stacee" and the selectable
list entries include an entry 404-B for retrieving Stacee's music, an entry
404-C for adjusting ambient lighting, and an entry 404-D for setting a
temperature based on Stacee's preference. Id. ,i 55. In response to the
occupant selecting entry 404-B, the processor searches for Stacee's nomadic
device and requests Stacee's music stored in memory at the nomadic device.
Id. ,i,i 57, 60.
According to the claim language, communication with the second
nomadic device must be "based on a unique user identification retrieved
from the one or more categorized items," which are "correlated with the
calendar entry" that has been received from the first nomadic device.
Appellant's Specification describes that "categorized items" may include a
location, one or more attendees, a subject, description, etc., that are
associated with the calendar entry. Spec. ,i,i 16, 68. For example, if the
categorized item is the attendee associated with the calendar entry, the
attendee may be recognized by the system based on a unique identification
or code, email address, user name, or profile name. Spec. ,i,i 47, 60.
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the
claim to recite that communication with the second nomadic device is tied to
the calendar entry retrieved from the first nomadic device because the
unique user identification used for communication with the second nomadic
device is "retrieved from" the categorized item( s) correlated with the
6
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
calendar entry from the first nomadic device. With this understanding of the
claim language, we now tum to the Examiner's finding of anticipation of
claim 1 by Rai.
The Examiner found Rai discloses a vehicle system that
communicates with a second nomadic device as claimed. The Examiner
found Rai' s vehicle system 123 comprises a processor programmed to
"communicate with a second nomadic device ( e.g., second client 103B, see
at least: [0032]) based on a unique user identification retrieved from the one
or more categorized items (user profile data 191, see at least: [0045])."
Final Act. 4. The Examiner further explains that in Rai, the vehicle system
receives the first user's profile data, which "may include reservation
information for both first and second users." Examiner's Answer (January
23, 2018, "Ans."), 4 (citing Rai, Fig. 8 and ,i,i 109, 118, 172-174).
Appellant contests this finding. Appellant argues Rai does not contain
explicit or implicit disclosure that the second user's reservation information
is included in the first user's profile data to support the Examiner's finding.
Reply Brief (March 23, 2018, "Reply Br."), 1 (citing Ans. 4). For the
reasons explained below, we do not find adequate support in the portions of
Rai relied upon by the Examiner to support the Examiner's finding.
Rai describes a system in which participants in a CoLease agreement
may access graphical user interfaces (GUis) on their smartphones to reserve
a time to use a co-leased vehicle. Rai ,i 30. As the participants use the
vehicle, they may each establish their own profile data, such as the
participant's ergonomic settings for the vehicle, device pairings, radio
presets, music streaming preferences, navigation settings, and calendar data.
Id. ,i 31. The user profile data may be updated each time a different
7
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
participant uses the vehicle and may be wirelessly synced from a cloud
server and downloaded to vehicle for each reservation. Id. Rai's system 100
includes: (1) vehicle system 123 comprising vehicle module 193, (2) clients
103A and 103B, each having user service module 199, and (3) agreement
server 109 having agreement module 197. Rai ,r 32, Fig. 1. The clients and
systems communicate via network 105. Id. User profile data 191A, 191B is
stored in vehicle system 123 and in agreement server 109. Id. ,r,r 42, 43.
Figure 8 of Rai depicts booking GUI 800. Rai ,r 15. Rai describes
that the code and routines, which are configured to generate GUI 800 to
provide the booking functionality and to receive inputs via GUI 800, may
reside in either vehicle module 193 of vehicle service system 400, user
service module 199 of user service system 200, or agreement module 197 of
agreement system 300. Id. ,r,r 55, 60-61, 76, Figs. 2-4. GUI 800 is
displayed on the touchscreen of client 103. Id. ,r 60.
Paragraph 109, relied on by the Examiner, does not support the
finding that the first user's profile data (e.g., calendar data) includes calendar
information for a second user's reservation. Paragraph 109 describes a
menu module 206 presented to a user as part of a user service system 200
accessed via the user's smartphone to make a reservation. In particular, the
menu module 206 is described with reference to booking GUI 800 shown in
Figure 8. Rai ,r 109. Rai describes that a user uses GUI 800 on client 103 to
input a reservation, and input data 288 is transmitted to agreement module
197 or vehicle module 193 via network 105. Id. Thus, GUI 800 is an
interface on the user's smartphone that allows access to the remote
reservation system, but the reservation data input by the user is stored
remotely on either the vehicle or at the agreement module. Thus, the
8
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
calendar information for the second user is not disclosed in Rai as being
stored in the first user's profile data.
Paragraph 118, relied on by the Examiner, also does not support the
finding that the first user's profile data (e.g., calendar data) includes calendar
information for a second user's reservation. Paragraph 118 describes that
GUI data displayed on an infotainment screen in a vehicle may be
transmitted from agreement system 300 via network 105 to vehicle service
system 400.
Paragraphs 172 through 17 4, relied on by the Examiner, also do not
support the finding that the first user's profile data (e.g., calendar data)
includes calendar information for a second user's reservation. Paragraphs
172 through 17 4 describe a user using either a smartphone or an
infotainment system to view and interact with booking GUI 800. Rai
discloses that the booking GUI includes a calendar depicting any number of
reservations for the participants in a CoLease agreement and all reservations
for participants in the CoLease are viewable by all users. Rai ,r,r 171-172.
Rai describes that a user may view all reservations for the vehicle and use a
smartphone to book a reservation via booking GUI 800, and that the
reservation details input by the user are transmitted from the user service
system 200 to the agreement system 300 to book the reservation. Thus, in
keeping with the description provided in paragraph 109, the agreement
module 197 houses the master calendar information for the vehicle
reservations.
Based on our review of Rai' s description of system 100, we find
inadequate evidence to support the Examiner's finding on page 4 of the
Answer that "the calendar data included in the user profile data [ of the first
9
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
user] may include reservation information of both the first and second
users." Even though a user can see reservation data for another user when
accessing the reservation system via the GUI on the user's smartphone, Rai
does not describe that the reservation data for a second user is included in
the calendar information in the first user's profile data. For this reason, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6, 8-10,
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Rai.
Claims 13-20
Independent claims 13 and 17 each recite "transmitting a request for
information related to the categorized item." Appeal Br., Claims Appendix
2, 3. In the Final Action, the Examiner found that Rai discloses this step
because when there is an upcoming reservation within a predetermined time
window from the current time, the vehicle system monitors for an indication
that the user is approaching the vehicle. Final Act. 8, 11 ( citing Rai ,r 157).
Appellant argues that if the categorized item is a time and location of a
reservation, then Rai' s disclosure of monitoring for an indication that the
user is approaching the vehicle is not "transmitting a request for information
related to the categorized item" as claimed. 3 Appeal Br. 5. As explained
below, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Rai discloses this step.
Rai describes the vehicle sending a signal to the agreement system
that a user is approaching and the agreement system sending user profile
3 Appellant presents the same arguments in support of the patentability of
independent claims 13 and 17. Appeal Br. 5-6. Appellant does not present
any separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 14-16 and 18-
20. Thus, we select claim 13 as representative of claims 13-20, and the
remaining claims stand or fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
10
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
information to the vehicle in response to the signal. Rai describes agreement
system 300 includes a synchronization module 306 that synchronizes user
profile data 191 to the vehicle system 123 based on the reservation indicated
by the reservation data 387 and a current time in the geographic area where
the participants reside or where the vehicle is located. Rai ,r 133. Rai
describes that synchronization module 306 may perform the method of
Figure 5. Id. Rai describes, with respect to Figure 5, that at the approximate
time for a reservation, agreement system 300 may monitor for an indication
that the user's client 103 (e.g., smartphone) has paired with the vehicle via
Bluetooth. Id. ,r 157. Such an indication may be sent from vehicle module
193 of vehicle system 400 or from user service module 199 of user service
system 200 resident on client 103. Id. According to Figure 5, when
synchronization module 306 receives an indication from vehicle module 193
that the user is approaching the vehicle, then synchronization module 306
retrieves user profile data for the user associated with the reservation and
transmits it to the vehicle to update the vehicle settings for that user. Id.
,r,r 158-160. Synchronization module 306 treats the indication received
from vehicle module 193 as a request for information about the user with the
upcoming reservation. Thus, Rai discloses a vehicle configuration method
that includes "transmitting a request for information related to the
categorized item" as recited in claim 13. For this reason, we sustain the
rejection of claim 13 as anticipated by Rai. Claims 14-20 fall with claim 13.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 2. The
Examiner finds that Rai discloses the features of claim 1 in rejecting
dependent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. 12 (stating that "Rai
11
Appeal2018-004647
Application 14/813,813
discloses the vehicle computing system of claim 1" and relying on
Demeniuk to teach "the vehicle setting comprises vehicle ambient lighting"
as recited in dependent claim 7). For the reasons provided above, we find
inadequate support for the Examiner's findings as to Rai's disclosure of the
subject matter of claim 1. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 7.
DECISION
We sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and the
rejection of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 10, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12