Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 25, 2021

2020004857 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 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. 14/799,862 07/15/2015 Alexander Groh 83539381 9613 28395 7590 10/25/2021 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2146 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2021 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 ALEXANDER GROH, JOHN WILLIAM SCHMOTZER, POL LLADO, ALI HASSANI, DYLAN VERSTER, and ARUN DUTTA Appeal 2020-004857 Application 14/799,862 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 25–27 and 29–37, which constitute all of 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 (2019). Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004857 Application 14/799,862 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims relate to automotive crowdsourced event reporting and reconstruction using connected vehicles and connected transportation infrastructure. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 25, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 25. A method comprising: detecting by sensors of vehicles a gunshot; transmitting, from the vehicles, sensor data including vehicle locations sensed at a time of the gunshot to a server; associating, by the server, the sensor data with a single event based on the vehicle locations being in proximity and the sensor data being sensed at the same time; and triangulating, by the server, a location of the event from the associated sensor data. Appeal Br. (Claims App.) 1. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Harel US 2010/0246669 A1 Sept. 30, 2010 Hutchings US 2013/0342333 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 Tsimhoni et al. (“Tsimhoni”) US 2016/0026180 A1 Jan. 28, 2016 REJECTIONS2 Claims 25, 26, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Harel. Final Act. 3. 2 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the Examiner to reconsider a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference Appeal 2020-004857 Application 14/799,862 3 Claims 27 and 29–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Harel and Hutchings. Final Act. 4–6. Claims 34–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Harel and Tsimhoni. Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection Claims 25, 26, and 33 Given our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the anticipation rejection of claims 25, 26, and 33, argued as a group, based on representative claim 25. See Appeal Br. 4. Referring to Figure 8 of Harel, Appellant argues that Harel does not disclose all of the elements recited in claim 25 because Harel does not disclose filtering out the surveillance data of surveillance devices 810 from the surveillance data of the other surveillance devices based on (i) surveillance devices 810 being in proximity to one another and (ii) the surveillance data of surveillance devices 810 being sensed at the same time, as claim 25 requires. Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant argues that: Harel (including FIG. 8 and paragraphs [0178-0184]) has no description of how host server 124, which monitors surveillance devices 810 which detected a gunshot (“surveillance devices 810”) and which monitors other surveillance devices which did not detect the gunshot (“the other surveillance devices”), distinguishes the surveillance data of surveillance devices 810 received by host sever 124 from the surveillance data of the other surveillance devices also received by host server 124. should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §1213.02. Appeal 2020-004857 Application 14/799,862 4 Id. The Examiner found that Harel discloses associating real time sensor data at the time of occurrence. Ans. 3–4 (Harel Fig.11, ¶¶ 194– 195, 201–202, 243–244, 256). In other words, the Examiner found that Harel discloses associating live data that is captured and uploaded to a server based on the sensor data being sensed at the same time as an event, such as a gunshot. See id. The Examiner also found Harel teaches that, when a surveillance device detects a triggering event in or near a motor vehicle, relevant surveillance data is uploaded to the server based on vehicle locations being in proximity to the triggering event. Id. (citing Harel ¶¶ 194–195, 201–202). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings, and has not filed a Reply Brief. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the plain language of the claims does not recite any step of distinguishing or filtering data, contrary to Appellant’s assertions. See Ans. 4. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Harel disclose the disputed limitation “associating, by the server, the sensor data with a single event based on the vehicle locations being in proximity and the sensor data being sensed at the same time.” Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 25, as well as of claims 26 and 33, argued as a group with claim 25. See Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-004857 Application 14/799,862 5 Obviousness Rejections Claims 27, 29–32, and 34–37 Appellant argues in a conclusory manner that claims 27 and 29–32 “depend from independent claim 25 and are therefore patentable over Harel in view of Hutchings.” See Appeal Br. 5. Similarly, Appellant argues that claims 34 and 35 depend from claim 25 “and are therefore patentable over Harel in view of Hutchings.” Id. Appellant further argues that claims 36 and 37 depend from independent claim 33 and are therefore patentable over Harel in view of Tsimhoni. Id. Because Appellant has not provided substantive arguments for claims 27, 29–32, and 34–37, and based on our affirmance of the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 25 and 33, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 27, 29–32, and 34–37. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 25–27 and 29–37. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 25, 26, 33 102(a)(1) Harel 25, 26, 33 27, 29–32 103 Harel, Hutchings 27, 29–32 34–37 103 Harel, Tsimhoni 34–37 Overall Outcome 25–27, 29–37 Appeal 2020-004857 Application 14/799,862 6 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