FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2022

2021002793 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2022)

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. 15/253,216 08/31/2016 Mark A. CUDDIHY 83684530 7204 28395 7590 01/11/2022 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER GALT, CASSI J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2022 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 MARK A. CUDDIHY, ERIC L. REED, MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO, and THOMAS LEE MILLER ____________ Appeal 2021-002793 Application 15/253,216 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. As used herein, “Appeal Br.” refers to pages 1-9 of the Appeal Brief filed on Aug. 3, 2020, and “Claims App.” refers to the Claims Appendix submitted with the Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, filed on Nov. 11, 2020. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002793 Application 15/253,216 2 CLAIMED INVENTON Appellant’s claimed invention relates “to a method and apparatus for vehicle occupant location detection.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a plurality of wireless transmitters deployed in a vehicle; and a processor configured to: receive, from a mobile device, signal strengths of signals from the wireless transmitters as detected by the mobile device; determine a location of the mobile device in the vehicle, based on an actual distance from the mobile device to each of the respective transmitters, as determined from the received signal strengths; confirm that a location of an occupant corresponds to the location of the mobile device, using at least one secondary vehicle physical-system state-change indicator of a vehicle physical system having a defined association with a seating location corresponding to the determined mobile device location, prior to storing the location of the occupant; responsive to the confirmation being a success, store the location of the mobile device as the location of the occupant. Claims App. 1. Appeal 2021-002793 Application 15/253,216 3 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus (US 9,533,576 B2, iss. Jan. 3, 2017) and Sanji (US 2018/0053416 A1, pub. Feb. 22, 2018). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Raffa (US 2014/0297220 A1, pub. Oct. 2, 2014). Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Breed (US 2004/0045758 A1, pub. Mar. 11, 2004). Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Kwark (US 9,827,825 B2, iss. Nov. 28, 2017). Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Wuergler (US 2014/0031010 A1, pub. Jan. 30, 2014). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Miller (US 2016/0248905 A1, pub. Aug. 25, 2016). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Slusar (US 9,672,568 B1, iss. June 6, 2017). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Menouar (US 9,888,357 B2, iss. Feb. 6, 2018). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Vilermo (US 2017/0276764 A1, pub. Sept. 28, 2017). Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kalbus, Sanji, and Penilla (US 9,348,492 B1, iss. May 24, 2016). 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the indefiniteness rejection of the claims. Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-002793 Application 15/253,216 4 ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because Kalbus does not “confirm that a location of an occupant corresponds to the location of the mobile device, using at least one secondary vehicle physical-system state-change indicator of a vehicle physical system having a defined association with a seating location corresponding to the determined mobile device location;” and “responsive to the confirmation being a success, store the location of the mobile device as the location of the occupant,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-7. Kalbus relates to controlling user equipment based on a relative position of user equipment within a reference coordinate system defined with respect to a vehicle. Kalbus 1:16-21. The user equipment includes a positioning unit configured to determine a relative position of the user equipment within a reference coordinate system defined with respect to a vehicle. Id. at 2:10-14. The relative position may be configured to distinguish between seating positions, such as a driver seating position, rear- seat passenger seating position, or front-seat passenger position. Id. at 2:27- 3:32. Depending on the determined relative position of the user equipment, some or all of its features (e.g., navigation, communication, climate control, and access permissions) are enabled or disabled. See id. at 2:50-64. In one embodiment, the positioning unit of the user equipment determines relative position based on signal strength of an electromagnetic field emitted by a transmitter of the vehicle. Id. at 3:56-59. “Additionally or alternatively, the positioning unit may be configured to determine the relative position based on control data.” Id. at 4:18-20. Control data is received from the vehicle by the user equipment and “implicitly or explicitly Appeal 2021-002793 Application 15/253,216 5 indicates the relative position of the user equipment.” Id. at 3:62-65; see also id. at 4:32-33. When used in addition to position data, the control data validates the relative position determined based on the signal strength of the electromagnetic field by cross-correlating it with the position indicated by the control data. Id. at 4:20-28. Kalbus teaches various techniques for determining a relative position of the user equipment (see, e.g., Kalbus 3:33-5:37), but each of the techniques assume that a user is co-located with the user equipment. See Kalbus 7:10-16 (describing that if the user is located in the front-left side of the vehicle, it concludes that the user of the user equipment is the driver of the vehicle; whereas, if it is positioned in the rear part of the vehicle, it concludes that the user of the user equipment is the rear seat passenger); see also Final Act. 7 (finding that Kalbus at column 4, lines 18 through 31 “establishes the equivalence of the mobile device location and the occupant location”); Ans. 12 (finding that “Kalbus is only interested in the location of the mobile device in as much as it corresponds to the location of a person”). Kalbus describes determining the relative position with respect to seating positions within the vehicle, and effecting functionality of the device accordingly. See, e.g., Kalbus 2:10-3:32. But Kalbus does not teach or suggest confirming that a location of an occupant corresponds to a location of the mobile device and, responsive to the confirmation being a success, storing the location of the mobile device as the location of the occupant. The Examiner finds that it is “inherent to the method of Fig. 6” of Kalbus, which determines whether a location of the user equipment changes, that the “last determined position must be stored in order to perform such comparison.” Final Act. 7 (citing Kalbus 9:32-40). Kalbus teaches that the method of Figure 6 checks whether a change in position detected and, if so, Appeal 2021-002793 Application 15/253,216 6 the method adapts the user’s access permission to those associated with the new determined relative position. Kalbus 9:26-40. Yet, these steps do not teach or suggest confirming that a location of an occupant corresponds to the previously-determined location of the mobile device and, responsive to that confirmation being a success, storing the location of the mobile device as the location of the occupant, as required by claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejections of dependent claims 3, 5-10, 13, 14, and 21 do not cure the deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons. Appeal 2021-002793 Application 15/253,216 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 11, 12 103 Kalbus, Sanji 1, 2, 11, 12 3 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Raffa 3 5-8 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Breed 5-8 5-8 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Kwark 5-8 5-8 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Wuergler 5-8 9 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Miller 9 10 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Slusar 10 13 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Menouar 13 14 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Vilermo 14 21 103 Kalbus, Sanji, Penilla 21 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-14, 21 REVERSED