FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 8, 20212019006432 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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. 15/947,196 04/06/2018 Jeffrey Yizhou HU 83951993 6605 28395 7590 03/08/2021 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER EUSTAQUIO, CAL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2021 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 JEFFREY YIZHOU HU, MICHAEL CRIMANDO, MICHAEL DAVID KAMINSKI, AUSTIN KIRK, and DERRICK PORTIS ____________ Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER S. BISK, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Under 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 IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention uses a processor to determine an applicable pre- defined vehicle system state set, defining preferred vehicle system states when a driver is away from a vehicle. The processor also determines a driver exit-event while a vehicle state in the state set varies from a preferred setting and notifies a driver mobile device of the variance responsive to the exit event. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: l. A system comprising: a processor configured to; determine an applicable pre-defined vehicle system state set, defining preferred vehicle system states when a driver is away from a vehicle; determine a driver exit-event while a vehicle state in the state set varies from a preferred setting; and notify a driver mobile device of the variance, responsive to the exit event. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 11, 12, and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mauro (US 2010/0039248 Al; published Feb. 18, 2010) and Baillargeon (US 2015/0217981 Al; published Aug. 6, 2015). Final Act. 2–5.2 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January 31, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed May 23, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 28, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed August 28, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 3 The Examiner rejected claims 4–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mauro, Baillargeon, and Foree (US 6,037,676; issued Mar. 14, 2000). Final Act. 6–8. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mauro, Baillargeon, and Tengler (US 2014/0247158 Al; published Sept. 4, 2014). Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mauro. Final Act. 9–10. THE REJECTION OVER MAURO AND BAILLARGEON Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Mauro discloses every recited element except for a driver mobile device, but cites Baillargeon as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 2–4. Appellant argues that not only does Mauro fail to determine a pre- defined preferred vehicle state, let alone when a driver is away from a vehicle, there is no reason why a skilled artisan would combine Mauro’s window alert function with Baillargeon’s device that is designed to prevent falling from a cherry picker as the Examiner proposes. Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant adds that the cited prior art also does not receive a state modification response from the mobile device as recited in claim 19. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 4 ISSUES I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Mauro and Baillargeon collectively would have taught or suggested a processor configured to: (1)(a) determine an applicable pre-defined vehicle system state set, defining preferred vehicle system states when a driver is away from a vehicle; (b) determine a driver exit event while a vehicle state in the set varies from a preferred setting; and (c) notify a driver mobile device of the variance responsive to the exit event as recited in claim 1? (2)(a) receive a state modification response from the mobile device; and (b) adjust the vehicle system state in accordance with the state modification response as recited in claim 19? II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS Claims 1–3, 11, 12, and 15–18 As noted above, claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a processor configured to determine an applicable pre-defined vehicle system state set, defining preferred vehicle system states when a driver is away from a vehicle. Our emphasis underscores that the state set is not only pre-defined, but it also defines vehicle system states that are preferred when a driver is away from a vehicle. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Mauro for at least suggesting this determination. As explained in the Abstract, Mauro’s device Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 5 (1) indicates the position of each vehicle window and emergency exit, and (2) sounds an alarm to indicate to the driver that one or more of the windows and emergency exits is open. The device can also indicate visually the operative position of any particular window or emergency door opening between the closed, slightly open, half open, and fully open positions. Mauro Abstract; ¶ 19; Figs. 5–7. As Mauro’s paragraph 19 explains, the driver may wish to know if any window is open or ajar while driving, and when leaving the vehicle, an alarm can sound to alert the driver that one or more windows are open. In this scenario, Mauro’s device effectively determines an applicable pre- defined vehicle system state set that includes pre-defined preferred vehicle system states, namely open or ajar windows when the driver is away from (i.e., has left) the vehicle. Although Mauro’s paragraph 19 states that the driver may wish to know that any window is open or ajar when a driver is in the vehicle, namely while driving, the fact that the driver can also be alerted of that condition when leaving the vehicle at least suggests the driver’s preference in connection with open windows likewise applies when the driver is away from the vehicle as well. That the driver can also be alerted if all windows are closed in Mauro’s paragraph 19 only underscores this point. As Mauro’s paragraph 19 emphasizes, if the driver leaves a pet unattended in a vehicle for a short time, it is important to leave all windows slightly cracked. To this end, Mauro’s device alerts the driver of each window’s position when leaving the vehicle so that the driver can take appropriate action to control the windows to the desired position. Mauro ¶ 19. Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 6 The import of this discussion is that, in this scenario that reflects the need for adequate ventilation for an unattended pet in a vehicle, the desired or preferred window position is “slightly cracked,” which reasonably corresponds to the pre-defined “partially cracked” position shown by line segment 60 in Mauro’s Figure 7. See Mauro ¶ 19. Therefore, when the driver is alerted that all windows are closed when leaving the vehicle in Mauro’s paragraph 19 a driver exit event, namely leaving the vehicle, is effectively determined while a vehicle state varies from a preferred setting, namely the partially cracked position. This alerting function also effectively notifies the driver of that variance responsive to that exit event. Appellant’s arguments regarding Mauro’s alleged shortcomings in this regard (Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2–3) are unavailing. Even assuming, without deciding, that Mauro’s device does not know the driver’s preferences regarding the state of the vehicle windows as Appellant contends (Reply Br. 2–3), at least some of the determined pre-defined states in Mauro’s Figure 7 and paragraph 19 nevertheless correspond to a driver’s preferences, such as the partially cracked state when a pet is left unattended in a vehicle in the scenario described in that paragraph. That is, determining this vehicle system state set in Mauro’s paragraph 19 and Figure 7 effectively defines preferred states when a driver is away from the vehicle, including the partially cracked state as noted above. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2–3), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does not preclude Mauro’s relied-upon functionality. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Baillargeon for the limited purpose for which it was cited, namely merely to show that mobile Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 7 devices, such as Baillargeon’s control receiver warning device 10, that visually and audibly warn users of unsafe conditions in a remote location are known in the art, and providing such a mobile device to warn users of potentially unsafe vehicular conditions, such as when all windows are closed when leaving a vehicle in Mauro’s paragraph 19, would have been an obvious variation. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s equating Baillargeon’s standalone control receiver warning device 10 in Figure 1 to the recited “mobile device” which, according to paragraph 15 of Appellant’s Specification, can include any device having wireless remote network connectivity. See Spec. ¶ 15 (noting examples of “nomadic” devices). To the extent Appellant contends that Baillargeon’s standalone control receiver warning device that communicates wirelessly with other devices as shown in Figure 1 is somehow not a mobile device or is otherwise incapable of wireless remote network capability (see Appeal Br. 5–6), there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. That Appellant refers to “the mobile device of Baillargeon” (Appeal Br. 6; emphasis added) only underscores the acknowledgment of Baillargeon’s mobile device. To the extent Appellant contends that Baillargeon is somehow non- analogous art (see Appeal Br. 5–6), we disagree. Prior art is analogous if it is (1) from the same field of endeavor regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Baillargeon is at least reasonably pertinent to Appellant’s problem, namely notifying a user of a condition in a remote location that varies from a preferred setting, including potentially unsafe conditions. See, e.g., Spec. Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 8 ¶¶ 44–45 (noting that a preferred vehicle state can include an emergency brake state responsive to an off-level condition); Baillargeon Abstract (noting that an operator is warned when an aerial lift’s movement is detected so that the operator can verify certain safety precautions); ¶ 6 (noting that the disclosed warning device is a standalone system for warning an operator of an aerial lift work platform’s movement and other fault conditions), ¶ 31. That Baillargeon’s system can detect this movement-based variance via sensors and switches attached to a vehicle in paragraph 26 further bolsters the notion that Baillargeon is not only in Appellant’s vehicular field of endeavor, but also at least reasonably pertinent to Appellant’s problem as noted above. To be sure, Mauro’s visual and audible indicator display is used on a vehicle, namely near the steering wheel in a school bus as shown in Figure 3, and in a passenger vehicle’s driver console 40 in Figure 5. See Mauro ¶¶ 18–19. Nevertheless, providing these visual and audible indications on a mobile device as the Examiner proposes would have been at least an obvious variation to not only warn drivers of potentially unsafe vehicular conditions while driving the vehicle using the display installed in the vehicle, but also when they are away from a vehicle via mobile device as noted above. We reach this conclusion emphasizing that there is no persuasive evidence on this record proving that providing Mauro’s visual and audible indications on a mobile device as the Examiner proposes would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Indeed, given the ubiquity of mobile devices and their alerting functions, the Examiner’s proposed combination is analogous to conventional electronic updates to mechanical devices that the court noted in Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 9 Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)—a technological trend that was held to be common in the electronics industry. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161 (“Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.”). In short, the fact that Mauro’s indications are displayed in the vehicle is not dispositive here, particularly when considered in light of the technological trend of communicating data—including indications and alerts—to mobile devices. Appellant’s contention, then, that there is no reason why one would move Mauro’s onboard warning system to a mobile device, let alone Baillargeon’s mobile device (Appeal Br. 6), is unavailing. Not only is there no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate this contention, providing Mauro’s visual and audible indications on a mobile device in light of Baillargeon as the Examiner proposes would not replace or remove Mauro’s visual and audible indicator display disposed in the vehicle as shown in Figures 3 and 5, but rather also provide this information to a mobile device—a useful adjunct that augments Mauro’s onboard display by similarly alerting drivers of potentially unsafe conditions on a mobile device when away from the vehicle. Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 15–18 not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 10 Claim 19 We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 reciting, in pertinent part, a processor configured to (1) receive a state modification response from a mobile device, and (2) adjust the vehicle system state in accordance with the state modification response. As Appellant indicates (Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3), the Examiner’s mere reference to the rejection of claim 1 in connection with these limitations (Final Act. 5) is problematic, for claim 1 lacks these limitations. That the Examiner fails to respond to Appellant’s arguments in this regard in the Answer only further undermines the propriety of the Examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19. THE REJECTION OVER MAURO We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 reciting, in pertinent part, a processor configured to revert a vehicle system state to a preferred state setting automatically responsive to determining that the vehicle system state does not match a preferred state setting. See Final Act. 9–10. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Mauro for at least suggesting the recited state reversion. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Mauro does not revert the vehicle system state when the windows are closed when a pet is left unattended in the vehicle to the preferred setting, namely the slightly cracked position of the windows in that scenario (see Final Act. 10) as noted previously, Mauro nonetheless Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 11 warns the driver of this non-preferred state to take appropriate action to control the windows to the desired position. See Mauro ¶ 19. Although this action to control the windows to their preferred position involves at least some manual activity to achieve that result, it is well settled that merely replacing manual activity with automatic means to accomplish the same result is an obvious improvement. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). And despite the manual steps required to revert the vehicle system state to the preferred state, that is not dispositive here, for the term “automatically” does not preclude at least some manual steps, so long as other steps are automatic. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Nor has Appellant shown that performing these functions automatically in lieu of at least some manual interaction would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161–62 (“Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 13, 14, and 20. Final Act. 6–9. Because these rejections are not argued separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in these rejections for the reasons previously discussed. Appeal 2019-006432 Application 15/947,196 12 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) /Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 11, 12, 15– 19 103 Mauro, Baillargeon 1–3, 11, 12, 15–18 19 4–10 103 Mauro, Baillargeon, Foree 4–10 13, 14 103 Mauro, Baillargeon, Tengler 13, 14 20 103 Mauro 20 Overall Outcome 1–18, 20 19 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation