Ex Parte Raju et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 9, 201713368598 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 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. 13/368,598 02/08/2012 Madhuri Raju 83210723 1784 28395 7590 01/11/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2017 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 MADHURI RAJU, JOSEPH CARL BEISER, and GERALD DOUGLAS NEELY Appeal 2015-005141 Application 13/368,5981 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 15—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The Specification states that “[t]he illustrative embodiments generally relate to a method and apparatus for alerting a driver of warning conditions.” Spec. 11. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-005141 Application 13/368,598 CLAIMS Claims 15—20 are on appeal. Claim 15 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites: 15. A computer-implemented method comprising: sending route data to a remote server for processing; responsively receiving one or more geo-fences defining a perimeter around hazardous environmental conditions along a route defined by the route data; monitoring the progress of a vehicle until a boundary of one of the geo-fences is reached; and notifying the remote server that the boundary was reached, including sending vehicle coordinate data. Br., Claims App. 1. REJECTIONS2 1. The Examiner rejects claims 15—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Breen.3 2. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breen in view of official notice. DISCUSSION Anticipation With respect to the anticipation rejection, Appellants raise separate arguments regarding only independent claim 15 and dependent claim 17. We address each of these claims separately below, and the remaining claims subject to this rejection, i.e. claim 16, 18, and 19, stand or fall with claim 15. 2 The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn. 3 Breen, US 2008/0162034 Al, pub. July 3, 2008. 2 Appeal 2015-005141 Application 13/368,598 Claim 15 With respect to claim 15, the Examiner finds that Breen discloses a method as claimed including sending route data to a central station, receiving geo-fencing data defining the perimeter of a hazardous environmental condition, monitoring vehicle progress, and sending notifications when a boundary has been reached. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Breen Figs. 2, 3; H 32, 33, 41, 45, 46, 50, 54, 55). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 15, and we are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments, as discussed below. First, Appellants argue that the claims require “a fence defining a perimeter around the condition itself,” which is different than Breen’s disclosure of “defining a perimeter around a road running through a condition.” Br. 5. We are not persuaded of a patentable distinction between the claimed geo-fences and the geo-fences disclosed by Breen. Breen discloses defining a geo-fence perimeter on a path that traverses an “excessively windy road.” Breen 142. By defining the perimeter around this portion of the road, Breen necessarily discloses “defining a parameter around a hazardous environmental condition” because the condition is only hazardous from the perspective of the vehicle, which is on the road. Thus, to the extent Appellants are arguing that the claim requires defining a perimeter around the entirety of the hazardous condition, Breen discloses just that. Second, to the extent Appellants argue that none of the other conditions described in Breen, including a low-height or weight limited bridge, may be characterized as environmental hazards, we disagree. See Br. 6—7. We agree with the Examiner that a low bridge, as well other 3 Appeal 2015-005141 Application 13/368,598 situations described by Breen, are hazardous environmental conditions under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. In particular, the Specification does not provide a limiting definition of such conditions and only generally describes hazards as including, but not limited to, “weather conditions, allergen conditions, hazardous material or emergency conditions, etc.” Spec. 133. Further, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim is consistent with the ordinary meaning of environmental: “the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded.” Definition of Environment, Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/environment, last visited Jan. 3, 2017. Finally, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s interpretation is overbroad because it “strips the word ‘environmental’ of all meaning.” Br. 6. Rather, the term environmental still has meaning in that it refers to the conditions surrounding the vehicle rather than any condition of the vehicle itself. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 15. We also sustain the rejection of claims 16, 18, and 19 for the same reasons. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim 15, and further requires “wherein the perimeter defines an area larger than the hazardous condition, such that the perimeter will be crossed prior to reaching the hazardous condition.” Br., Claims App. 1. Appellants argue that “[njothing in Breen actually demonstrates the size of any hazardous condition,” and the Examiner has not supported the statement that Breen’s geo-fences are larger than the hazardous condition. Br. 6. We are not persuaded of error. Breen discloses, for example, a geo-fence defining a perimeter around a path including a low bridge, which would necessarily include an area larger than the bridge, i.e. 4 Appeal 2015-005141 Application 13/368,598 the hazardous condition, itself such that an alert is sent before the vehicle reaches the bridge. See Breen 142. Thus, we are not persuaded of error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 17. Obviousness With respect to claim 20, the Examiner finds and concludes: As to claim 20, Breen teaches generating geo-fence with various types of hazardous condition and utilization of the geo fence data (1 30-35, 41, 50 and Fig. 3). Breen does not specifically teach updating and replacing the geo-fence data. The examiner takes Official Notice it is well known in the art to update and replace old information with the newly updated information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to allow the geo-fence in Breen’s teaching to include the features of updating and replacing the outdated geo-fence data for providing more accurate information. Final Act. 5. Further, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that “because road constructions happen very frequently, maps and geo-fences need to be updated.” Ans. 3^4. Appellants argue: The claims define, specifically, how the alleged “new information” is utilized and how the geo-fence is updated based on this information. Again, this further supports the contention that a “bridge” is not an environmental condition as claimed, and thus Breen does not disclose defining a perimeter around an environmental condition. A change in the “windy” conditions in Breen would either result in no perimeter around road 190 or the persistence of the perimeter around road 190, but there would be no re-definition of the perimeter around the environmental condition as claimed, because that simply does not occur in Breen. Br. 7. 5 Appeal 2015-005141 Application 13/368,598 We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to update Breen’s geo-fence perimeters based on changing environmental conditions, including a change in condition based on road construction, which may be considered a “geographic change in the hazardous condition” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of any error in this conclusion. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 15— 20. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation