FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2021

2019006432 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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.
15/947,196 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