Ex Parte POPHALE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2019

14789039 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/789,039 07/01/2015 Sachin POPHALE 34007 7590 03/26/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. I LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 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. LEAR 54590 PUS 1905 EXAMINER EDWARDS, TYLERB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2019 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 SACHIN POPHALE and GADDAM SACHIN KRANTHI KUMAR Appeal2018-007325 Application 14/789,039 1 Technology Center 2400 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify the real party of interest as Lear Corporation. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2018-007325 Application 14/789,039 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a vehicle authentication system, which includes a controller configured to detect a trigger event, activate at least one camera, transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device, receive an image from the at least one camera, and grant access to the vehicle in response to the image including the unique identifier. (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 12 exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics: 1. A vehicle authentication system, comprising: a controller configured to: detect a trigger event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle; in response to the trigger event, activate at least one vehicle camera and transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device; receive an image from the at least one camera; and grant access to the vehicle in response to the image including the unique identifier. 12. A vehicle authentication system, comprising: a camera; and a controller configured to: determine a trigger event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle; activate the camera in response to the trigger event; receive a unique image from the camera; compare the unique image with at least one stored image; and 2 Appeal2018-007325 Application 14/789,039 unlock at least one vehicle door in response to the unique image and stored image matching. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Saylor (US 8,943,187 Bl; Jan. 27, 2015) and Gehrke (US 2001/0049569 Al; Dec. 6, 2001). ANALYSIS Claims 1-11 and 13-20 We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7-82) that the combination of Saylor and Gehrke would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "in response to the trigger event, activate at least one vehicle camera and transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device." The Examiner found that the authorization procedure of Gehrke, in which the user pulls the door handle, causing transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side to emit a signal, corresponds to the limitation "trigger event." (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further found that the unlocking action of Saylor by recipient 152, in which electronic device 122 displays an image (e.g., QR code or bar code) and a scanner on lock 158 reads the image, corresponds to the limitation "in response to the trigger event, activate at 2 The recitation of "in response to the trigger event, activate at least one vehicle camera and transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device" in independent claim 1 is similar in scope to dependent claim 13, which recites "wherein the controller is further configured to transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device in response to the trigger event" ( emphases added). Accordingly, Appellants' argument with respect to dependent claim 13 are also applicable to independent claim 1. 3 Appeal2018-007325 Application 14/789,039 least one vehicle camera and transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device." (Id. at 4--5.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Gehrke relates to "[a] device for exchanging data with a motor vehicle having a portable transponder." (Abstract.) Gehrke explains that "the user begins the access authorization procedure ... by pulling the door handle." (i-f 18.) Moreover, Gehrke explains that "[a]s a result, control unit 20 causes transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side to emit an inquiry signal" and "[t]he in-range transponder 16 receives the inquiry signal and in reply, sends the (vehicle-dependent) authorization code as a response signal back to transmitter/receiver 18, the signal being encoded in some instances." (Id.) Saylor relates to "a social networking platform [that] may provide electronic keys to other users of the social networking platform." (Abstract.) Saylor explains that "[t]o use the electronic key, the recipient 152 initiates an unlocking action using the electronic device 122." (Col. 9, 11. 55-56.) Moreover, Saylor explains that "[t]he lock 158 may include one or more mechanisms for communicating with persons and other devices" and "[t]he input mechanisms may include ... a camera." (Col. 9, 11. 31-34.) In one embodiment of Saylor, "the electronic device 122 receives access data that permits the electronic device 122 to open the lock" (col. 8, 11. 47--49), with exemplary access data being a Quick Response (QR) code or a bar code (col. 8, 11. 55-56). Saylor further explains that "[t]he electronic device 122 may display the image, and a scanner on the lock may read the image to confirm that access is permitted." (Col. 8, 11. 57-59.) While Gehrke explains that the user pulls the door handle, resulting in the start of the authorization procedure, and Saylor explains that the scanner reads access data in the form of a Quick Response (QR) code or a bar code, 4 Appeal2018-007325 Application 14/789,039 the Examiner has not demonstrated that the unique identifier is transmitted to a mobile device "in response to the trigger event," as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "Saylor discusses receive [sic] a QR code at a camera, but not within the context of transmitting such a code in response to a trigger event." (App. Br. 7-8.) Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Independent claim 20 and dependent claim 13 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 20, as well as dependent claims 14--19, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Claim 12 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 5---63) that the combination of Saylor and Gehrke would not have rendered obvious independent claim 12, which includes the limitation "determine a trigger 3 The disputed limitation of claim 12 is similar in scope to a limitation found in independent claim 1, which recites "detect a trigger event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle" (emphases added). Appellants argue that claim 12 is patentable for the same reasons indicated with respect to the disputed limitation found in claim 1. (App. Br. 7 .) 5 Appeal2018-007325 Application 14/789,039 event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle." The Examiner found that the authorization procedure of Gehrke, in which the user pulls the door handle, causing transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side to emit a signal, corresponds to the limitation "determine a trigger event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle." (See Final Act. 4, 12.) We agree with the Examiner's findings. As discussed previously, Gehrke explains that "the user begins the access authorization procedure ... by pulling the door handle." (i-f 18.) Furthermore, Gehrke explains that "[a]s a result, control unit 20 causes transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side to emit an inquiry signal" and "[t]he in-range transponder 16 receives the inquiry signal and in reply, sends the (vehicle-dependent) authorization code as a response signal back to transmitter/receiver 18, the signal being encoded in some instances." (Id.) Because Gehrke explains that when the user pulls the door handle, transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side sends an authorization code to an in-range transponder 16, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4, 12) that Gehrke teaches the limitation "detect a trigger event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle." Appellants argue that "Gehrke does not disclose any 'sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle"' and "[ t Jo the contrary, Gehrke discloses a single pull of the door handle." (App. Br. 5.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited to paragraph 18 of Gehrke, which includes at least one step: (i) the user pulling the door handle; and (ii) transponder 16 being in-range. Accordingly, we agree with 6 Appeal2018-007325 Application 14/789,039 the Examiner (Final Act. 4, 12) that Gehrke teaches "a sequence of interactions." Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Saylor and Gehrke would have rendered obvious independent claim 12, which includes the limitation "determine a trigger event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle." Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 12 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-20 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7