FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 4, 20212019004998 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation