FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 1, 20202019006082 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020) 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. 15/166,921 05/27/2016 Tom RAMAKERS 83645729 9159 28395 7590 05/01/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER WHALEN, MICHAEL F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2020 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TOM RAMAKERS and NADJA WYSIETZKI ____________ Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–18. 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. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “a method and device for supporting a driving maneuver of a motor vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 9. A system for a vehicle, comprising: an ultrasonic sensor; and a controller programmed to, responsive to input data not provided by the ultrasonic sensor and indicative of surface conditions for a road including roughness, tune a sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensor via selecting among predetermined setting values to configure the ultrasonic sensor according to the roughness, and to issue commands based on output of the ultrasonic sensor that result in maneuvering of the vehicle. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: NAME REFERENCE DATE Faber US 2009/0249878 A1 Oct. 8, 2009 Tamari US 2013/0096731 A1 Apr. 18, 2013 Nakano US 2015/0268335 A1 Sept. 24, 2015 The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–13, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano and Tamari. Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 3 II. Claims 6, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Tamari, and Faber. OPINION Rejection I Regarding independent claim 9, the Examiner finds Nakano discloses, inter alia, a system for a vehicle comprising a controller programmed to, responsive to input data not provided by an ultrasonic sensor, tune a sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensor via selecting among predetermined setting values to configure the ultrasonic sensor according to the input data, as claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing Nakano ¶¶ 27, 38, Figs. 1, 3). In particular, the Examiner finds Nakano discloses that the input data for tuning the ultrasonic sensor is based on “environmental conditions.” Id.; Ans. 4 (citing Nakano ¶¶ 39–42, 47, 52, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6A, 6B). Indeed, Nakano discloses that the sensitivity of the sound wave sensor (or ultrasonic sensor) is adjusted based on, for example, air temperature and humidity, which is measured separately from the ultrasonic sensor. See, e.g., Nakano ¶¶ 38, 40, 52. The Examiner determines that Nakano fails to disclose that the input data (i.e., the environmental conditions) is indicative of a rough road surface condition, as required by claim 9, and the Examiner relies on Tamari for teaching that “a bumpy road is an environmental condition that affects sensors.” Ans. 4 (citing ¶¶ 22, 49). The Examiner reasons, inter alia, that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano’s system to tune the sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensor based on input data indicative of a rough road surface condition, as taught by Tamari, Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 4 “[to allow] the system to properly compensate for the condition.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4 (reasoning that “the system would be allowed to better adapt to different environmental condition[s]”). Appellant argues that “Tamari does not change the sensitivity of sensors used to detect data based on whether the road is bumpy”; rather, “Tamari changes the threshold values used for determining whether such detected data is considered an ‘event’ or a ‘non-event.’” Appeal Br. 4 (citing, e.g., Tamari ¶ 58); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant submits that because Tamari relies on sensing a bumpy road for the purpose of classifying data (i.e., an event verses a non-event), “Tamari would not have suggested within the context of Nakano that road roughness could be used as a basis for adjusting the sensitivity of an ultrasonic sensor.” Appeal Br. 4; see also id. at 5 (“the reason Tamari changes [the] ‘event/non-event’ threshold is because it does not change the sensitivity of its ultrasonic sensor”). Tamari discloses a drive event2 detector configured “to receive sensor data from one or more onboard sensors and receive other information from other external source(s) (e.g., satellite GPS location data . . . ) . . . [indicative of] the geolocation of the vehicle.” Tamari ¶ 22; cf. Spec. ¶ 24 (“input data 21 comprise GPS data as well as navigation maps, which are suitable for determination or assessment of the type of road or the condition of the surface beneath the motor vehicle”). Tamari also discloses that geolocation 2 Tamari discloses that “[d]rive events may comprise accidents, near- accidents, traffic law violations, company rule violations, driving occurrences that increase the risk of accidents or otherwise causing harm to the owner of the vehicle or driver’s employer” and may include “one or more ‘basic’ drive operations that characterize basic or elementary moves of driving.” Tamari ¶ 17. Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 5 data may indicate a rough road surface condition, because Tamari discloses that sensor data is compared against “geolocation based . . . bumpy road profile.” Tamari ¶ 49 (“the determination that a drive event has occurred can be made based on one or more predefined criteria such as one or more sensor data values . . . match[ing] predefined profiles,” such as “geolocation based . . . bumpy road profile”). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Tamari discloses input data indicative of a rough road surface condition, namely, geolocation data. As argued by Appellant supra, Tamari discloses that “[i]n various embodiments, the geolocation based criteria includes one or more geolocation based onboard sensor threshold values for detecting an event from driving data.” Id. ¶ 58 (emphasis added). As explained in Tamari, “a deceleration threshold for detecting a collision drive event is set higher for a bumpy road (e.g., a road filled with potholes), since a bumpy road would cause more erratic decelerations than decelerations that occur when driving on a well-paved neighborhood street.” Id. Thus, the event detector3 may be adjusted to be less sensitive based on geolocation data (including the rough condition of a road) by setting thresholds for sensor data. Id. (for example, “a concrete vehicle at a job site with known rough or uneven roads . . . mak[es] an event detector less sensitive”). However, in addition, a preponderance of the evidence also supports a finding that Tamari expressly discloses that the sensitivity of a sensor may be adjusted based on geolocation data—input not provided by the sensor and indicative of road conditions—specifically, in the context of road 3 In view of our analysis, it is unnecessary to consider whether the event detector itself is a sensor. Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 6 conditions representing a parking garage versus a highway. In particular, Tamari discloses that the geolocation based criteria are applied for capturing drive events of the moving vehicle. In some embodiments, this involves adjusting one or more sensor’s sensitivities based on the geolocation of the vehicle. The idea is that driving in different environments requires different maneuvering styles. For example, it is normal for drivers to make a series of turns interconnected by short stretches of driving straight in a parking garage. If the drive event capture criteria are based on sharpness and frequencies of turns and if the same criteria are used for driving in the parking garage as for driving on the highway, the drive event detector may over capture drive events when the vehicle is traveling in the parking garage and under detect drive events when the vehicle is traveling on the highway. To overcome this difficulty, it may be important to adopt a different set of criteria for different driving geolocations. In some embodiments, instructions can be sent to onboard sensors to adjust their sensitivity setting. . . . In various embodiments, adjusting sensor sensitivity involves adjusting a detection threshold of the sensor, adjusting a gain of the sensor, adjusting an attenuation of the sensor, adjusting a bandwidth of a sensor, or any other appropriate adjustment to a sensor. Tamari ¶ 59 (emphasis added). Notably, Nakano discloses that the sensitivity of the sound wave sensor (or ultrasonic sensor) may be “corrected by correcting the amplification factor (gain).”4 Nakano ¶ 66. 4 The Specification appears to admit that it is known to at least select a setting for an ultrasonic sensor based on road conditions, as the Background section explains: “[i]n practice, for example a compromise regarding the sensitivity adjustment of the ultrasonic sensors between the different possible scenarios is selected,” wherein the possible scenarios include “sensor-based detection of relatively small objects or obstacles, such as for example poles or posts,” which necessitate “a relatively high sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensors,” and also “travel[] over gravel or cobbles” which necessitates “a relatively low sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensors.” Spec. ¶ 4. Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 7 Further, if not expressly disclosed, Tamari at least suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art that such geolocation data may include the bumpiness or roughness of a road, because, as discussed supra, Tamari discloses determining a bumpy road profile and also cites a job site as examples of geolocation data indicative of a rough road surface condition. “A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In sum, Appellant’s focus solely on Tamari’s teaching of adjusting the thresholds for sensor data does not address Tamari’s teaching that the sensitivity of the sensors may be adjusted based on geolocation data. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10–13, and 15–17 apart from the arguments presented for claim 9. Thus, for essentially the same reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10–13, and 15–17. Rejection II Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 6, 14, and 18 apart from the arguments presented for claim 9. Thus, for essentially the same reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 14, and 18. Appeal 2019-006082 Application 15/166,921 8 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–13, 15– 17 103 Nakano, Tamari 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–13, 15– 17 6, 14, 18 103 Nakano, Tamari, Faber 6, 14, 18 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–6, 8–18 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation