Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 11, 2020

2020001095 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2020)

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. 15/608,309 05/30/2017 Walter Joseph Talamonti 83782150(65080-2375) 3985 113140 7590 08/11/2020 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER ENGLISH, JAMES A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2020 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 WALTER JOSEPH TALAMONTI, SHUN-AN CHUNG, and LOUIS TIJERINA Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, 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, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “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. 3. Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a real time lane change display. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: displaying a predicted path that represents a steerable path polynomial based on a planned lane change maneuver; executing the lane change maneuver; and while the lane change maneuver is being executed updating the predicted path display based on the lane change maneuver. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sim US 2016/0185388 A1 June 30, 2016 Hass US 2016/0280265 A1 Sept. 29, 2016 Yamaoka US 2016/0304126 A1 Oct. 20, 2016 Gupta US 2018/0196436 A1 July 12, 2018 REJECTIONS Claims 1–8 and 11–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka and Gupta. Final Act. 2. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka, Gupta, Haas and Sim. Final Act. 4. OPINION Claims 1 and 11 Claim 1 is representative of claims 1 and 11 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In rejecting claim 1 based on the Yamaoka and Gupta combination the examiner initially appears to rely on Yamaoka’s “lane line” as the recited “predicted path.” Final Act. 2. The “lane line[s]” in Yamaoka Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 3 are representations of the lane demarcations on the roadway itself and are identified by reference numeral 72. Yamaoka para. 48; Fig. 4A–G. In addressing the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant does appear to be correct in stating: “Yamaoka’s closest teaching of the recited displaying or updating appears to be a disclosure of displaying target lines indicating a direction of a lane change.” App. Br. 5 (citing Yamaoka para. 63) (emphasis added). This is because the target line, represented by reference numeral 77 in Yamaoka, represents the direction of a lane change in the display screen 70 and therefore would be regarded by the skilled artisan as “a predicted path that represents a steerable path [] based on a planned lane change maneuver” according to claim 1. Yamaoka para. 49. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner does not correct Appellant’s interpretation of Yamaoka by, for example, indicating that it was not the target line 77 of Yamaoka that the Examiner relied on in the rejection, but the lane lines 72 themselves which the Examiner intended to rely on as the recited “predicted path” of claim 1. Arguably, if the vehicle in Yamaoka will begin traveling within the confines of a first lane and end traveling within the confines of a second lane, the lane lines 72 themselves could also be reasonably regarded as “a predicted path that represents a steerable path [] based on a planned lane change maneuver.” No arguments are presented for our consideration regarding this point. Although the distinction between the lane lines 72 and the target line 77 creates some uncertainty as to the Examiner’s position, our decision is ultimately unaffected by how this uncertainty is resolved. This is because the secondary reference Gupta teaches the use of polynomial expressions to represent both lane lines and path or trajectory lines (see Gupta para. 33) and we agree with the conclusion that it would have been obvious to incorporate Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 4 either of those polynomial line forms into Yamaoka’s display in order to influence the vehicle’s trajectory. See Final Act. 3. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s proposed combination would result in Yamaoka’s display being unchanged and simply using Gupta’s polynomial path representations for optimizing automated driving and lane changes. App. Br. 5. However, we see no reason why one skilled in the art would stop where Appellant suggests. It would clearly be desirable to have a more accurate representation of the lane change maneuver and/or lanes themselves in Yamaoka’s display 70 in order to inform the driver of the vehicle’s plan in automated mode or influence the driver to adhere to an optimal path in manual mode. Appellant additionally argues that Gupta is only concerned with trajectory determinations, not their display. App. Br. 6. The Examiner points out that Gupta’s trajectory determination system does communicate with its onboard display system. Ans. 7 (citing Gupta paras. 23, 24). However, we recognize Gupta’s disclosure in this regard does appear to fall short of indicating Gupta’s optimized trajectory is actually displayed on Gupta’s onboard display. This is of no moment here, however, as Gupta need not also teach this aspect of the claimed subject matter for which the Examiner relied on Yamaoka. The question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be Gupta’s polynomic lane and/or trajectory representation on Yamaoka’s display 70. This falls squarely within the subject matter defined by claim 1. Ans. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11. Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 5 Claims 4 and 14 Concerning representative claim 4, Appellant argues: Yamaoka discloses at most planning a route based on safety factors, not on safety or a safe field of travel being included in a display. In short, there is no teaching or suggestion anywhere in Yamaoka that “updating . . . [a] display includes updating a field of safe travel.” App. Br. 6. In response to Appellant’s argument that Yamaoka does not disclose the subject matter of claim 4, the Examiner states: It is the Examiner’s position that Yamaoka does recite the limitation of “updating the predicted path display includes updating a field of safe travel.” Yamaoka discloses “(t)he traveling plan generation unit 12 generates a traveling plan in which the host vehicle V performs traveling which satisfies standards such as safety, legal compliance, and traveling efficiency, on the target route.” (Paragraph 43.) Furthermore, Yamaoka discloses in figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 56-65 the situation where the host vehicle detects another vehicle in a neighboring lane while attempting a lane change and returns the host vehicle to the original lane (fig. 5). This description clearly shows the system in Yamaoka constantly updating the surrounding field of the vehicle for safe travel. Ans. 10. Above, the Examiner relies on two aspects of Yamaoka’s disclosure as satisfying the limitations of claim 4. We address each in turn, beginning with the safety standards taken into account according to cited paragraph 43. The undeveloped crux of this first matter would appear to be whether the recitation “updating the predicted path display includes updating a field of safe travel” requires, by implication, as Appellant argues, “safety or a safe Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 6 field of travel being included in a display.” App. Br. 6 (Emphasis added). An example of such display is illustrated, among other places, at reference numeral 908 in Figure 9 of Appellant’s application. However, just because a feature appears in Appellant’s preferred embodiment, that is not, without more, sufficient reason to incorporate that subject matter into the claims. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F. 3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). As the Examiner points out, and it does not appear to be disputed, Yamaoka’s traveling plan generating unit 12 continuously updates the travel plan, upon which the visual information in display 70 is based, while taking into account safety factors. We recognize that the “updating a field of safe travel” step must, according to claim 4, be included in the “updating the predicated path display” step. However, we are neither aware of nor apprised of any reasons why a step of updating a display cannot be regarded as including updating information upon which that display is based even if such information is not itself presented on the display. The broadest reasonable reading of claim 4 would cover this and if Appellant wished to define something more specific, during prosecution is Appellant’s opportunity to do so. The process of patent prosecution is an interactive one, where claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. In re Zletz, 893 F. 2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). In any case, even under a more narrow reading of claim 4, the second cited portion of Yamaoka (paras. 56–61; Fig. 5; see also Figs. 6X–Z) would reasonably be regarded by the skilled artisan as disclosing “updating a field of safe travel” and including the results of that update in the display. In the Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 7 context of the host vehicle detecting another vehicle in a neighboring lane while attempting a lane change, i.e., an unsafe condition, and the host vehicle returning to the original lane, as depicted in Figs. 5 and 6 of Yamaoka, display 70 is updated to include, in place of the first lane change target line 77, a second target line 79. Yamaoka para. 70. Displaying the second target line 79 constitutes an indication on the display that an updated “field of safe travel” has become the driving lane 74 as opposed to the neighboring lane 75. We agree with the Examiner that Yamaoka’s disclosure in this regard falls squarely within the subject matter defined by claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 14. Claims 5 and 15 Representative claim 5 requires: wherein updating the predicted path display is based on input via a steering wheel by an occupant. Appellant argues that Yamaoka takes into account steering angle but not input to the steering wheel by an occupant. Although not cited with a reference to a specific paragraph number, as is preferable, in rejecting claim 5 the Examiner quotes directly from paragraph 44 of Yamaoka: the vehicle control device 100 switches the automatic driving which is being executed to manual driving in a case where the amount of operation of a driving operation by the driver of the host vehicle V during the automatic driving is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value. Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 8 Final Act. 4. Appellant does not address this particular portion of paragraph 44 quoted by the Examiner. In the Answer, the Examiner additionally points out that the following paragraph, paragraph 45, provides: The display unit 14 displays the progress situation of the lane change to the driver of the host vehicle V through the display screen of the HMI 7. . . the display unit 14 displays the lane line while changing a position of the lane line according to the progress situation of the lane change. Ans. 11 (emphasis omitted). The quoted portion of paragraph 45 does not appear to make any qualification on the display being updated only as the result of autonomous driving as Appellant’s arguments suggest. Paragraph 51 of Yamaoka further specifies: The length of the first target line 77 extending from the host vehicle front portion 71 until it bends becomes shorter as the host vehicle V approaches the lane line 204. See also Figs. 4A–G (illustrating both updating of lane lines 72 and target line 77). The Examiner’s determination that Yamaoka updates display 70 and, to the extent required by claim 5, updates a path displayed thereon, appears to be accurate and is not addressed with specificity by Appellant. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 15. Remaining claims The remaining claims are not separately argued and presumed to stand or fall with their respective parent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. Appeal 2020-001095 Application 15/608,309 9 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 11–18 103 Yamaoka, Gupta 1–8, 11–18 9, 10, 19, 20 103 Yamaoka, Gupta, Haas, Sim 9, 10, 19, 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