Ex Parte Yopp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

14018580 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
14/018,580 09/05/2013 Wilford Trent Yopp 83386030(65080-1067) 7287
7590
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
300 River Place
Suite 1650
Detroit, MI 48207
EXAMINER
CHEN, SHELLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
docket @ b2iplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILFORD TRENT YOPP
Appeal 2016-003666
Application 14/018,580
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3—9, and 11—23. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant1 discloses a system in which an autonomous operation is
performed based on the impaired condition of a vehicle operator. Abstract.
1 The Appellant is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. According to the
Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Ford Motor Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003666
Application 14/018,580
Representative Claim {key limitations emphasized)
1. A system, comprising a computer in a vehicle, the computer
comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the computer is
configured to:
detect a condition of an operator of the vehicle;
determine that the condition is an impaired condition;
perform at least one first autonomous operation based on the
impaired condition;
request assistance, based on the impaired condition, from a
remote server outside the vehicle; and
receive a response to the request, including an instruction to
perform at least one second autonomous operation, the
instruction being based at least in part on a factor identified by
the remote server other than the impaired condition.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3—9, and 11—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2012/0089299 Al; published
Apr. 12, 2012). Final Act. 3—5.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1, 3, 5—9, 11, and 13—23
Breed monitors the state of a driver’s health, relays that information to
a remote facility, and receives and executes instructions to perform an action
such as causing the vehicle to stop on the shoulder or elsewhere out of the
2
Appeal 2016-003666
Application 14/018,580
traffic stream. Breed 1906. In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Examiner finds these steps—which include multiple autonomous
operations to execute the instruction to stop the vehicle out of the traffic
stream—render obvious both performing at least one first autonomous
operation based on the impaired condition and receiving an instruction to
perform at least one second autonomous operation, the instruction being
based at least in part on a factor identified by the remote server other than
the impaired condition. Final Act. 3 (citing Breed 880, 882, 905, 906,
Fig. 78).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Breed requires steps
not required by claim 1” (transmitting a driver healthy state to a remote
facility) to perform the first autonomous operation. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.
However, we agree with the Examiner that the extra steps performed by
Breed are not precluded by claim 1. Ans. 4. As the Examiner correctly
finds, responding to an instruction to stop the vehicle out of the traffic
stream would likely include more than one operation (e.g., steering and
deceleration). Ans. 7. Because such operations would be in response to an
instruction, received because of the driver’s impaired condition, these
operations would be based on the impaired condition as claimed. Moreover,
Breed discloses multiple instructions that could be executed, including
activing an alarm, illuminating a warning light, or causing the vehicle to
come to a stop out of the traffic stream. Breed 1906. It would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to provide instructions to perform
multiple operations (e.g., activating alarms and warning lights while also
bringing the vehicle to a stop safely).
3
Appeal 2016-003666
Application 14/018,580
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by relying on the same feature
of Breed for both performing both the first and second autonomous
operations, the second autonomous operation being based at least in part on
a factor identified by the remote server other than the impaired condition.
App. Br. 8. As discussed above, responding to an instruction such as
stopping the vehicle out of the traffic stream would likely include multiple
operations. Thus, Appellant’s contention that the Examiner erroneously
relies on the same feature in Breed for both autonomous operations is
unpersuasive. Furthermore, the second autonomous operation is merely
based at least in part on a factor identified by the remote server other than
the impaired condition. The Examiner correctly finds “[t]his claimed factor
could be mapped to any one of a variety of data from Breed, including the
nearest location out of the traffic stream.” Ans. 8. Moreover, Breed
explicitly discloses at least one factor other than the impaired condition:
whether “the vehicle is equipped with an automatic guidance system and
ignition shut-off’ such that execution of an instruction “to cause the vehicle
to come to a stop . . . out of the traffic stream” is even possible. Breed
1906.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Breed renders
obvious “perform[ing] at least one first autonomous operation based on the
impaired condition” and “receiv[ing] a response to the request, including an
instruction to perform at least one second autonomous operation, the
instruction being based at least in part on a factor identified by the remote
server other than the impaired condition,” as recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-003666
Application 14/018,580
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 3, 5—9, 11, and 13—23, which Appellant does not
argue separately with specificity. See App. Br. 9—10.
Claims 4 and 12
Appellant argues claim 4 is separately patentable because “Breed does
not even disclose first and second autonomous operations, but even if so, the
command of paragraph 906 could not also read on the recited ‘third
autonomous operation.’” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5. However, as
discussed above, responding to an instruction to stop the vehicle out of the
traffic stream would likely include more than one operation and it would
have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to provide instructions to
perform multiple operations, where at least three (activating an alarm,
illuminating a warning light, and bringing the vehicle to a stop safely) are
explicitly disclosed. Breed 1906. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Breed discloses the disputed recitation of claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 4, and claim 12, which Appellant does not argue separately. App.
Br. 10.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—9, and 11—
23.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5