FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2019004998 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

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.
15/639,103 06/30/2017 Mark Anthony Rockwell 83815332 5667
28395 7590 01/04/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
VILLENA, MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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 MARK ANTHONY ROCKWELL, BENJAMIN M. ROCCI,
AND DAVID RANDOLPH ROBERTS
Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and MICHAEL T.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods and apparatuses for dynamic
configurable vehicle occupant queries.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive an input driver-answerable question relating to a
vehicle-detectable vehicle issue;
determine a parameter, an occurrence of which indicates a
possible existence of the vehicle-issue;
determine a vehicle-system in which the vehicle issue
occurs;
identify a plurality of individual vehicles including the
vehicle-system in their respective configurations;
compile a query including the question, parameter and
vehicle-system; and
wirelessly distribute the query to the identified vehicles.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nielsen US 2007/0173993 A1 July 26, 2007
Nakao US 2013/0131893 A1 May 23, 2013
Chen US 2015/0206357 A1 July 23, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Nielsen and Nakao. Final Act. 4–12.
The Examiner rejected claims 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Nielsen, Nakao, and Chen. Final Act. 12–17.

Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
3
OPINION
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON NIELSEN AND NAKAO
Claims 1–13
Appellant argues that the combination of Nielsen and Nakao fails to
teach or suggest “compile a query including the question, parameter and
vehicle-system.” Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant contends that
Nakao’s question relates to a driver experience, not a vehicle-detectable
vehicle issue, and that Nielsen only teaches a diagnostic report and not a
question for the driver. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, because
Nakao only teaches presenting a question in English and Nielsen only
teaches presenting a diagnostic code, “the driver is still in no position to
provide the diagnostic code, and therefore this question [based on the
combined references] is not driver-answerable.” Reply Br. 2.
We find this argument unpersuasive. As pointed out by the Examiner,
Appellant fails to consider the teachings of Nielsen and Nakao combined.
Ans. 3–4. Nielsen generally teaches sending an inquiry to a vehicle relating
to a vehicle-detectable vehicle issue and Nakao teaches providing queries to
a vehicle driver. See, e.g., Ans. 4. (citing Nakao ¶ 42). Considering these
teachings together, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
the teachings to a query including a driver driver-answerable question
relating to a vehicle-detectable vehicle issue. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Appellant next argues that Nielsen and Nakao lack a centralized
processor. Appeal Br. 5–7. According to Appellant, Nielsen teaches a
Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
4
mechanic directly communicating with a vehicle and, therefore, the vehicle
processor receives the inquiry in Nielsen. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further
explains that because Nielsen’s vehicle processor does not perform the
additional claimed steps, such as identifying a plurality of vehicles and
compiling a query, Nielsen does not teach the claimed central processor.
Appeal Br. 5–7.
We disagree. Nielsen describes to a fleet management system
including a central processing unit (CPU). Ans. 5 (citing Nielsen ¶ 24). In
general, Nielsen describes a system with web-based reporting of fleet
metrics, such as vehicle diagnostic data. Nielsen ¶ 23. While exemplary
embodiments describe a mechanic sending a query to a vehicle, this is within
the context of the (web-based reporting) fleet management system. See, e.g.,
Nielsen ¶ 110 (noting that the following examples illustrate how the fleet
manager can use actionable metrics to adjust fleet assets). As such, a skilled
artisan would understand the mechanic would input a query through the fleet
management system to send to a fleet vehicle.
This understanding is consistent with Nielsen’s Examples 6 and 7.
For example, the mechanic, in Example 6 uses vehicle diagnostic
information along with fleet management data to schedule repair at an
optimal time and location. Nielsen ¶¶ 120–121. The mechanic then contacts
the driver to direct the driver to a selected repair facility. Id. Similarly, the
mechanic, in Example 7, can send an inquiry to the vehicle, to gather vehicle
diagnostic data to determine the appropriateness of a service station’s
recommendations. Nielsen ¶ 122. As such, contrary to Appellant’s
assertions, in Nielsen the fleet management system’s processor, a central
processor, would receive the mechanic’s inquiry, not the vehicle processor.
We, therefore, find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive.
Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
5
Appellant next asserts that Nielsen does not teach “identify[ing] a
plurality of individual vehicles including the vehicle-system in their
respective configurations.” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, Nielsen
merely describes that vehicle diagnostic data can be associated with one or
more vehicles. Id.
The Examiner, however, explains
Nielsen teaches indicating a performance of the fleet based on
fleet management data and vehicle diagnostic data (par. 0071).
By indicating performance of a fleet using such fleet
management data (which contains vehicle information) and
receiving vehicle diagnostic data, Nielsen clearly identifies of a
plurality of vehicles having a determined vehicle-system.
Ans. 6–7.
We agree with the Examiner. As noted above, Nielsen generally
teaches a fleet management system where trouble or diagnostics codes are
associated with one or more vehicles in the fleet. Nielsen ¶ 51. Nielsen
describes a portal to obtain individual details on vehicles, such as vehicle
diagnostic alerts and performance indicators. Nielsen ¶ 55. The system uses
this fleet management information and vehicle diagnostic information to
optimize management of the fleet. Nielsen ¶ 72. As such, a skilled artisan
would understand that Nielsen’s use of diagnostic code alerts and vehicle
information, such as the vehicle’s manufacturer, to manage or optimize
management of the fleet at least suggests identifying a plurality of vehicles
with the particular diagnostic code. Appellant’s general assertion that
associating a diagnostic code with one or more vehicles, fails to consider the
overall teachings of Nielsen and, thus, is unpersuasive to identify error.
Appellant also argues that Nakao fails to teach (1) a parameter, (2)
distribution to a plurality of vehicles based on those vehicles including a
Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
6
particular system, and (3) a central processor. Appeal Br. 6–7. These
arguments, however, fails to consider the teaching of Nielsen. For example,
the Examiner relies on Nielsen as determining the parameter and teaching a
central processing unit performing the recited steps. See, e.g., Final Act. 4–
5. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097. As such,
we are not persuaded that the Examine erred in rejecting claims 1–9 as
unpatentable over Nielsen and Nakao.
With respect to claim 10, Appellant argues that Nakao fails to teach or
suggest presenting a query to a vehicle occupant responsive to the
occurrence of the value. Appeal. Br. 7–8. According to Appellant, “the
query is received before the issue occurs, and is presented when and if the
issue occurs” and Nakao instead teaches “after-the-fact type inquiries and
there is no triggering of the presentation ‘responsive to the occurrence of the
value.’” Appeal Br. 7.
We disagree. Appellant, again, fails to consider the combination of
Nielsen and Nakao. See, e.g., Final Act. 10–11. Namely, Nielsen teaches a
vehicle processor receiving a query including a parameter and parameter
value, monitoring for occurrence of the parameter value, and responsive to
the occurrence of the value, present a query to the vehicle. Final Act. 10.
Nakao teaches providing a query to a driver when an issue occurs. Ans. 8
(citing Nakao ¶ 42); Final Act. 10. For example, Nakao, in an exemplary
embodiment describes detects a sense of discomfort at an intersection and
then presents a query to the driver. Nakao ¶ 43. As such, Nielsen and
Nakao together teach or suggest the claimed limitations. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
7
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 at 426; In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097. As such, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10–13.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1–13 as unpatentable over Nielsen and Nakao.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON NIELSEN, NAKAO, AND CHEN
Claims 14–20
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 15, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented for claim 10. Appellant also presents similar
arguments for claim 16. Namely, Appellant argues that the cited
combination lacks a cohesive question, i.e. Nielsen is limited to vehicle
answerable questions and Nakao only relates to vehicle system parameters
and cannot replace Nielsen’s question. Appeal Br. 8–9. As discussed
above, we find this argument unpersuasive. As identified by the Examiner,
Chen teaches displaying questions on a smart phone and, thus, teaches the
claimed mobile device processor. Ans. 10. Considering Chen together with
Nielsen and Nakao, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 16–20.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirm the rejection of
claims 14–20 as unpatentable over Nielsen, Nakao, and Chen.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are affirmed.
Appeal 2019-004998
Application 15/639,103
8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13 103 Nielsen, Nakao 1–13
14–20 103 Nielsen, Nakao,
Chen
14–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED