Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020005025 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
15/600,167 05/19/2017 Michael Schiebahn 83811697 1060
117396 7590 03/24/2021
FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
EXAMINER
BOOMER, JEFFREY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3619
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL SCHIEBAHN, PETER W.A. ZEGELAAR,
and HELMUTH BOSCH
____________

Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated July 29, 2019, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Ford Global Technologies, LLC. is identified as the real
party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 2, 2020, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM IN PART.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates “to a sensor and auxiliary device for
producing a steering torque on a steering system of the vehicle.” Spec. para.
3.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A vehicle comprising:
a sensor generating a signal;
a vehicle steering control having an actuator; and
a data processor connected to the sensor and
actuator wherein the data processor determines a vehicle
escape lane based on said sensor signal and activates said
actuator to generate an indicative steering torque on the
steering control in an evasive steering direction toward
the vehicle escape lane upon determining a collision is
imminent, the indicative steering torque causing an
insignificant change in vehicle direction.

Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as being indefinite.
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ewerhart.2

2 Ewerhart et al., US 2007/0299610 Al, published Dec. 27, 2007.

Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

3

III. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ewerhart and
Moshchuk.3
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ewerhart and Spero.4
V. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ewerhart and Lee.5,6

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that the term “insignificant” in independent
claims 1 and 5, and the phrase “not significantly” in independent claim 9, are
indefinite.7 See Final Act. 7. The Examiner explains that “[t]he term
‘insignificant’ . . . is used relatively, in that it is unclear what constitutes an
insignificant action and what does not.” Id. Relying on paragraphs 32, 35,
and 42 of Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner notes that “[a]n indicative
steering torque appears to slightly control, insignificantly control, and not
control the steering process of the vehicle.” Id. at 3. Therefore, the

3 Moshchuk et al., US 2014/0032049 Al, published Jan. 30, 2014.
4 Spero et al., US 2016/0039459 Al, published Feb. 11, 2016.
5 Lee, US 9,227,632 Bl, issued Jan. 5, 2016.
6 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–12 as
unpatentable over Lee and Moshchuk and of claims 4, 8, and 13 as
unpatentable over Lee, Moshchuk, and Spero have been withdrawn by the
Examiner. See Examiner’s Answer (dated Apr. 22, 2020, hereinafter
“Ans.”) 4; Final Act. 16–23.
7 The Examiner has withdrawn the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 5,
and 9 with respect to the phrase “indicative steering torque.” See Ans. 4;
Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

4

Examiner asserts that the term “‘[i]nsignificantly’ is conflated with slightly
moving the vehicle and not moving the vehicle at all and the demarcation
between ‘insignificantly’ and slightly moving the vehicle and not moving
the vehicle is entirely unclear.” Id. at 3. In other words, according to the
Examiner, “it is unclear how one of ordinary skill would ascertain what
constitutes significant action and what is an insignificant action and/or
where the delineation between the two occur[s].” Id. at 7–8. Thus, the
Examiner takes the position that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
term “insignificant” “is any amount of movement which is less than a larger
movement value (i.e. a torque value may be considered insignificant in view
of a larger torque value).” Id. at 3.
Relying on paragraphs 23, 32, 35, 42, and 46 of the Specification and
on a dictionary definition of the term “insignificant,” Appellant argues that a
skilled artisan “understands the usage of the term ‘insignificant,’ in light of
the [S]pecification, to mean at most an ineffective, unimportant, or small in
size change in vehicle direction.” Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Oxford
University Press, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/96842 (accessed
February 29, 2020)). In particular, Appellant does not agree with the
Examiner’s construction of the term “insignificant” to mean “any amount
which is less than a larger amount” because “[t]he Examiner offers no
evidence for this unreasonable construction,” which “does not comport with
the [S]pecification” and “the ordinary and customary meaning of the term.”
Id. at 12.
“[C]laims under examination before the PTO are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Abbott
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

5

Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this case,
paragraph 42 of Appellant’s Specification states (with emphases added):
The temporary indicative steering torque produced by the
auxiliary device on the steering control can be haptically
perceived by the driver, preferably without disturbing or
distracting the driver. Producing the indicative steering torque
such that the driving direction of the motor vehicle is not or is
only insignificantly changed by the indicative steering torque,
means that the indicative steering torque is not and cannot be
used to carry out an autonomous steering process of the motor
vehicle or for a steering assist function. The indicative steering
torque is used only to indicate to the driver a direction he could
turn or rotate the steering control to carry out a promising
evasion maneuver.

Hence, a skilled artisan would readily understand that an “indicative steering
torque,” which is haptically perceived by a driver of a motor vehicle,
produces an “insignificant change in vehicle direction” when it cannot
“carry out an autonomous steering process of the motor vehicle or for a
steering assist function.” In other words, the amount of change in vehicle
direction is considered “insignificant” when caused by a steering torque that
cannot be used for autonomous steering or a steering assist function.
As such, in contrast to the Examiner’s position, an “insignificant
change in vehicle direction” does not constitute “any change in direction
value that is less than another change in direction value.” See Ans. 5.
Rather, an “insignificant change in vehicle direction” constitutes “any
change in the vehicle direction caused by the indicative steering torque . . .
[that] could not be used to carry out an autonomous steering process or for a
steering assist function.” See Reply Brief (filed June 22, 2020, hereinafter
“Reply Br.”) 3. Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner’s position
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

6

that the term “insignificant” is “subjective.” See Ans. 4 (“What is
insignificant to one person or vehicle may be significant to another.”).
Although we appreciate that the steering torque level at which it cannot be
used for autonomous steering or a steering assist function may differ
between motor vehicle models, nonetheless, each vehicle possesses such a
steering torque level and a skilled artisan would know to determine it. Id. at
5 (“[T]he same change in direction for a vehicle with looser
suspension/steering vehicle . . . would be more significant in that it would
require more human power to revert back to a state of not changing direction
than a vehicle with a tighter suspension/steering-response).”
In conclusion, an “insignificant change in vehicle direction” (as per
claim 1) and “an insignificant change in vehicle [direction]” (as per claim 5)
constitutes a change in direction resulting from a steering torque that cannot
be used for autonomous steering or a steering assist function. For similar
reasons, as discussed supra, “the indicative steering torque does not
significantly change vehicle direction” (as per claim 9) means a change in
direction resulting from a steering torque that cannot be used for
autonomous steering or a steering assist function. Therefore, because the
scope of claims 1, 5, and 9 is clear, we do not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1, 5, and 9 as being indefinite.

Rejection II
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Ewerhart discloses a vehicle including, inter alia,
sensors 12, 14, 16, 18 (detection unit 10), a vehicle steering control having
an actuator, and a data processor 20 (evaluation unit) that determines an
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

7

avoidance trajectory to the right or left to avoid collision with an obstacle
situated on the road. Final Act. 8–9 (citing Ewerhart, paras. 12, 13, 16, 21,
29–32, 34). The Examiner also finds that Ewerhart’s avoidance trajectory is
provided to the driver via a haptic signal in the form of a steering wheel
vibration to warn the driver of a potential collision. Id. at 9 (citing Ewerhart,
paras. 11, 17, 35, 39–41). The Examiner further finds that “Ewerhart . . .
does not explicitly disclose that the haptic feedback causes an insignificant
change in the vehicle direction.” Id. Nonetheless, the Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
Ewerhart’s haptic vibrations “do not significantly change the vehicle
direction” as Ewerhart “distinguishes between warning a driver using haptic
feedback” (as per para. 40) “and moving the vehicle along the
suggested trajectory” ( as per paras. 36–38). Id. (emphasis added). The
Examiner explains that “[i]t is precisely because haptic feedback and applied
steering torque are warnings that indicate a direction a user should go - they
do not themselves cause the trajectory to be followed.” Id. at 4 (emphasis
added).
Relying on Ewerhart’s paragraphs 9, 16, 19, and 35–41, Appellant
notes that “Ewerhart provides two things, an optimal avoidance suggested to
the driver at the time of or after initiation of the driving maneuver, and if the
danger of collision is high, the driver can be optionally warned before the
collision by an acoustic, haptic, and/or optic warning.” Appeal Br. 15–18.
In particular, Appellant argues that “[n]othing in paragraph [0036] indicates
that the induced or applied steering torque does not cause the vehicle to
follow the optimal avoidance trajectory” and “[p]aragraph [0040] addresses
a collision warning, nothing more,” whereas “[t]he optimal avoidance
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

8

trajectory suggested to the driver is not an optional warning before the
collision.” Id. at 17–18. Thus, according to Appellant, “[i]f the optimal
avoidance trajectory did not significantly change the vehicle direction,”
“then there would be no need for the driver to override the suggested optimal
avoidance trajectory.” Id. at 17.
Ewerhart discloses a vehicle safety system, which in an emergency
avoidance situation, suggests to the driver an “optimal avoidance trajectory
. . . in the form of an induced or applied steering torque and/or by a suitable
haptic steering assist” that sends a haptic signal in the form of a vibration or
an oscillation to “inform the driver.” Ewerhart, paras. 10, 11 (emphasis
added). In particular, Ewerhart discloses that the “haptic steering assist . . .
suggests to . . . [the driver] an optimal avoidance trajectory.” Id. at para. 41
(emphasis added). Ewerhart further discloses that after the driver is
informed of an optimal avoidance trajectory by the haptic signal in the form
of a vibration or an oscillation, the driver can “follow the suggested optimal
avoidance trajectory” or can “override the suggested optimal avoidance
trajectory.” Id. at paras. 36–38.
Hence, in light of Ewerhart’s disclosure, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments. In particular, Ewerhart’s haptic steering assist
suggests to the driver an optimal avoidance trajectory, via a haptic signal,
such as a vibration or an oscillation, but “[t]he driver is the means by which
the trajectory is accomplished.” See Ans. 5–6. In other words, “the
[avoidance] trajectory is suggested via haptic means,” such as a vibration or
an oscillation, but “taking the actual [avoidance] trajectory requires user
intervention.” See id. at 6 (emphasis added). As such, Ewerhart is clear; the
vibration or oscillation of the haptic signal are the means by which the driver
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

9

is informed of an optimal avoidance trajectory, but then the driver either
follows or overrides the suggested optimal avoidance trajectory. We do not
agree with Appellant that “[t]he Examiner does not explain how, the haptic -
sense of touch – steering assist suggests the optimal avoidance trajectory.”
Reply Br. 4–5. An artisan must be presumed to know something about the
art apart from what the reference discloses. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516
(CCPA 1962). Here, a skilled artisan would readily have understood that a
haptic steering assist, which sends a haptic signal in the form of a vibration
or an oscillation, is merely a vibration or oscillation that a driver can sense
by touch through the steering wheel of the vehicle.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Examiner
that because “the [optimal avoidance] trajectory is suggested via haptic
means and taking the actual trajectory requires user intervention,” Ewerhart
discloses “an indicative steering torque which insignificantly changes the
direction of travel,” as called for by independent claim 1. Ans. 6.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent
claim 1 as unpatentable over Ewerhart.

Claims 5 and 9
Appellant relies on the same arguments discussed supra in the
rejection of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 18–25. Therefore, for the
same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments, and, thus, we likewise sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claims 5 and 9 as unpatentable over Ewerhart.

Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

10

Rejection III
Appellant relies on the same arguments discussed supra in the
rejection of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 26–28 (“[N]either
Ewerhart nor Moshchuk disclose an indicative steering torque causing an
insignificant change in vehicle direction.”). Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments,
and, thus, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2, 3, 6, 7,
10, and 12 as unpatentable over Ewerhart and Moshchuk.

Rejection IV
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 4, 8, and
13 separate from the rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 9, from which
claims 4, 8, and 13 depend. See Appeal Br. 28. Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above in Rejection II, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments, and, thus, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claims 4, 8, and 13 as unpatentable over Ewerhart and Spero.

Rejection V
Claim 11 adds the limitation “the actuator stops generation of the
temporary indicative steering torque when the second sensor detects that
continued displacement of said steering control in the evasive steering
direction ceases after expiration of a predetermined period of time.” See
Appeal Br. 41 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that although Ewerhart fails to disclose this
limitation, Lee does disclose it. Final Act. 16 (citing Lee col. 4, l. 3, col. 11,
ll. 28–34). In particular, the Examiner finds that as Ewerhart’s haptic
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

11

feedback is relevant to an avoidance maneuver to avoid a collision, after the
driver performs the maneuver and the collision is avoided, the haptic
feedback ceases. Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that Lee discloses
“determining the time duration for an avoidance maneuver.” Id. Thus, the
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art “to provide the aforementioned limitations taught by
Lee with the motivation of calculating a return path such that the vehicle
returns to the lane center . . . [after] the evasive maneuver (2:35-41) and
improve passenger comfort by improving smoother lane changes (1:40-45).”
Final Act. 16 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant does not agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the
disclosure of Lee. See Appeal Br. 29. According to Appellant, “Lee does
not disclose a predetermined period of time before the vehicle returns from
the waypoint 78 to the center line 68 of the original [lane] 66,” but rather
“discloses calculating a return path from a waypoint [78] once the collision
path 80 is solved.” Id. (citing Lee, col. 2, ll. 34–37); see also Lee, Figs. 3, 4.
Appellant explains that “[t]he time in Lee is a typical lane change time,
having nothing to do with continued displacement of the steering control in
the evasive steering direction ceasing.” Appeal Br. 29. Thus, Appellant
asserts that “[n]othing in Lee discloses stopping the temporary indicative
steering torque after a period when the steering control is no longer
continually displaced in the evasive steering direction.” Id. at 29–30.
We appreciate the Examiner’s findings that
(1) Lee discloses a steering angle with a steering sensor (see Lee, col.
4, l. 3);
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

12

(2) an avoidance trajectory requires changing steering of the vehicle,
which in turn changes the steering angle (see Lee, Figs. 3 (paths
82, 86), 4 (paths 82, 104, 86)); and
(3) an end of the avoidance trajectory is represented by a non-
changing steering angle (see Lee, Figs. 3, 4 (moving along
centerline 68)). See Ans. 8.
However, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Lee’s
predetermined time to return from waypoint 78 to center line 68 constitutes a
time “when a continued displacement of the steering control ends.” Ans. 8.
Rather, during Lee’s estimated time to return from waypoint 78 to center
line 68 the displacement of the steering control continues, and it is only at
the end of this estimated time that displacement of the steering control ends.
This is in contrast to claim 11, which requires stopping the indicative
steering torque when the displacement of the steering control has ended
“after expiration of a predetermined time.” See Appeal Br. 41 (Claims
App.); see also Spec. paras. 24, 34, 43. In other words, claim 11 requires
that the displacement of the steering control first cease, and then, “after
expiration of a predetermined time,” stopping the indicative steering torque.
As explained above, Lee does not teach such a sequence of events. Neither
does Ewerhart, because in Ewerhart the haptic steering assist, i.e. indicative
steering torque, is stopped at the end of an avoidance trajectory, that is,
when steering control ceases, and not “after [the] expiration of a
predetermined time” after steering control ceases, as called for by claim 11.
See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 11 as unpatentable over Ewerhart and Lee.
Appeal 2020-005025
Application 15/600,167

13

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 9 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 5, 9
1, 5, 9 103 Ewerhart 1, 5, 9
2, 3, 6, 7,
10, 12
103 Ewerhart, Moshchuk 2, 3, 6, 7,
10, 12

4, 8, 13 103 Ewerhart, Spero 4, 8, 13
11 103 Ewerhart, Lee 11
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12,
13
11

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 IN PART