Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 12, 2022

2021000140 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 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. 15/697,870 09/07/2017 Yi Zhang 83787384 6146 28415 7590 01/12/2022 PRICE HENEVELD LLP FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 695 KENMOOR S.E. P. O. BOX 2567 GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567 EXAMINER ZHOU, ZHIHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/12/2022 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): ptomail@priceheneveld.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YI ZHANG and ERICK MICHAEL LAVOIE Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We refer to the Specification, filed September 7, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed November 19, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed April 7, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 20, 2020 (“Ans.”). 2 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. 5. Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 2 We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant discloses “[t]he present invention generally relates to systems for hitching a vehicle to a trailer, and more particularly, to hitch assist systems capable of identifying a trailer location through image processing.” Spec. ¶ 1 (Field of the Invention). Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 12. A hitch assist system comprising: an imager for capturing images of a rear-vehicle scene containing a trailer; a controller for processing the captured images; and a device disposed at a trailer location proximate a hitch coupler and having a display configured to flash a circular shape at a predetermined frequency and alternating between a first and second color, wherein the imager captures images of the display of the device in the rear-vehicle scene and the controller identifies the circular shape flashing on the display in the captured images to determine the trailer location. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies on the following prior-art references: 3 All citations herein to the prior art are by reference to the first named inventor only. Name3 Reference Date Sato US 2010/0027879 Al Feb. 4, 2010 Chang US 2012/0069199 Al Mar. 22, 2012 Davis US 2012/0208592 A1 Aug. 16, 2012 Kashar US 2016/0217662 A1 July 28, 2016 Talty US 9,403,413 B2 Aug. 2, 2016 Shepard US 2017/0073004 Al Mar. 16, 2017 Donnelly US 2017/0294130 A1 Oct. 12, 2017 Terwilliger US 2018/0097884 A1 Apr. 5, 2018 Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 3 The Examiner rejects: a. claims 1-7, 11-15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, and either (i) Davis (Final Act. 2-9) or (ii) Chang (id. at 12-20); b. claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Sato and, either (i) Davis (id. at 9-10) or (ii) Chang (id. at 20-21); c. claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Shepard, Sato, Donnelly and either (i) Davis (id. at 10) or (ii) Chang (id. at 21); and d. claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Shepard, Terwilliger, and either (i) Davis (id. at 10-11) or (ii) Chang (id. at 22.) STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are forfeited.4 OPINION As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 12 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, and either (i) Davis (Final 4 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 4 Act. 2-9) or (ii) Chang (id. at 12-20). In particular, the Examiner finds Talty’s disclosure of a system for assisting in coupling a vehicle and a trailer that includes a sensing device on the vehicle and a flashing colored light source positioned on the trailer’s tongue teaches claim 12’s imager, controller, and a device disposed at a trailer location proximate a hitch coupler that is configured to flash a predetermined color of light at a predetermined frequency wherein the controller identifies a circular shape in captured images to determine trailer location. Id. at 2-3, 11-12 (citing Talty 3:11-4:7, 6:31-8:56, Figs. 1, 3, 6-8, 10-12). Talty’s disclosure of using a circular Hough Transform pattern matching routine to identify the location of a hitch ball (i.e., a circular shape) is relied on by the Examiner for teaching identifying a circular shape of a coupling in an image. Id. at 4. The Examiner relies on Kashar’s disclosure of an alarm monitoring system including a puck having a series of flashing LEDs for providing visual alerts to, for example, a deaf user for teaching a display configured to display a circular shape at a predetermined frequency and with changing colors. Id. at 3, 12 (citing Kashar ¶¶ 22, 25-26, 29-32, 36, 40, 42-43, 52-53, Figs. 1A- 5). The Examiner finds Shepard’s disclosure of a display for guiding an operator in maneuvering a trailer teaches a “display configured to flash a circular shape at a predetermined frequency and alternating between a first and second color; and the controller identifies the circular shape flashing on the display in the captured images to determine the trailer location.” Id. at 5-7, 13-15 (citing Shepard ¶¶ 29, 31, 32, 36-37, Figs. 8-11). According to the Examiner “any person of ordinary skill in the art can see how the teachings in Shepard show techniques for a mobile display to help determine trailer location and guide trailers utilizing methods that include flashing on a Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 5 display for alerting purposes as well as color changes based on user preferences.” Id. at 6-7; 15. In a first rejection, the Examiner relies on Davis’s disclosure of image recognition performed by a smartphone for teaching claim 12’s wherein clause of “wherein the imager captures images of the display of the device disposed at the trailer location in the rear-vehicle scene containing the trailer with regard to the controller identifying the circular shape flashing on the display in the captured images to determine the trailer location.” Id. at 7 (citing Davis ¶¶ 662-674). In an alternative second rejection, the Examiner instead relies on Chang’s disclosure of a camera on a computing device used to capture an image of a display screen of another or target computer for teaching the wherein clause of claim 12. Id. at 16-17 (citing Chang ¶¶ 27, 30, 75, 96). The Examiner further finds reasons why one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of the applied references. Id. at 4, 6-7, 13, 15, 17. Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1 and 12 is improper because, inter alia, according to Appellant: 1. Talty identifies a second coupling 114, not a shape flashing on a display. Appeal Br. 9. 2. Kashar’s puck 101 does not include a display. Id. at 10. 3. There is a lack of motivation for modifying the system of Talty to include Kashar’s puck. Id. We address Appellant’s arguments as follows. 1. Talty identifies a second coupling 114, not a shape flashing on a display. The Examiner finds Talty’s disclosure of identifying a spatial location of a vehicle coupling in an image captured by a rear-facing camera teaches Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 6 wherein the controller identifies a circular shape in the captured images to determine the trailer location. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues, rather than identifying a shape flashing on a display, “Talty is concerned with identifying the second coupling 114” located at a distal end of tongue 112 of trailer 104. Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellant. Talty describes a light source 806 that “may emit a predetermined color . . . which aids in identifying the second coupling 114 in [an] image” and that the light source “may also, or alternatively, flash a predetermined pattern that aids in identifying the second coupling 114.” Talty 7:55-62. However, there is no indication that Talty teaches identifying the light source itself or some other target associated with the coupling rather than the coupling itself. Instead, Talty merely discloses using a circular Hough Transform to determine first coupling 108 implemented as hitch ball 110 located at a distal end of tow hitch 106 of the towing vehicle 102. Talty 6:61-65. Thus, rather than identifying a circular shape flashing on a display proximate a hitch coupler of trailer 104, such as light source 806, Talty teaches identifying a circular shape on the towing vehicle (i.e., the hitch ball) or the hitch coupler on the trailer. Therefore, the Examiner errs in finding Talty teaches the controller identifies a circular shape in the captured images to determine the trailer location. 2. Kashar’s puck 101 does not include a display. The Examiner relies on Kashar for teaching “a device having a display configured to display a circular shape at a predetermined frequency and at various, i.e. changing, colors.” Final Act. 3 (citing Kahar ¶¶ 22, 25- 26, 29-32, 36, 40, 42-43, 52-53, Figs. 1A-5). Appellant argues Kashar’s Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 7 “puck 101 may include a series of lights 105 located on the outer surface 103C for providing visual alerts to users by flashing lights” but “does not include a display.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds, disagreeing with Appellant but otherwise not providing any further explanation addressing the disputed display. Appellant’s argument is persuasive because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the asserted interpretation of the subject disputed limitation. During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification.”); In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”). The broadest reasonable interpretation is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining the broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be appropriate to consult a dictionary definition for guidance. TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062-63 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Although not providing a formal definition of a “display,” Appellant’s Specification discloses, “Referring to FIG. 3, the system 10 includes a Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 8 device 90 disposed at a trailer location 92 and having a display 94 configured to flash a shape 96 at a predetermined frequency and alternating in color. In the depicted embodiment, the device 90 is a portable electronic device such as a smartphone, tablet or the like.” Spec. ¶ 26. Figure 3 is reproduced below with labels added. Figure 3 depicts a device at a trailer location and having a display configured to flash a pattern. Furthermore, an instructive, albeit somewhat dated, dictionary definition of a display is “[t]he visual output device of a computer, which is commonly a CRT-based video display. With portable and notebook computers, the display is usually an LCD-based or gas plasma-based flat-- panel display.”5 Thus, we understand the display recited by claim 12 is a device capable of displaying images of various shapes including the claimed circular shape. We find no disclosure by Kashar that the LEDs of puck 101, 5 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 166 (5th ed. 2002). Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 9 either individually or as a group, have any such capability. Accordingly, the Examiner errs in finding Kashar teaches the display of claim 12. For the reasons discussed above, we disagree a reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a display configured to flash a circular shape” includes Kashar’s LEDs. That is, the limitation when read in light of the Specification requires more than a series of lights 105 located on the outer surface 103C for providing visual alerts to users by flashing lights. Accordingly, the Examiner errs in finding Kashar’s puck teaches or suggests the disputed display configured to flash a circular shape at a predetermined frequency and at various, i.e., changing colors. Cf. Final Act. 3. 3. Motivation for modifying the system of Talty to include Kashar’s puck. The Examiner finds as follows: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Talty’s system with Kashar’s system to show a device disposed at a trailer location proximate a hitch coupler and having a display configured to show a circular shape at a predetermined frequency and alternating between a first and second color; and the controller identifies the circular shape from the display in the captured images. In any event, a visual indicator can be captured, processed, and be used to alert the user of the various circumstances that would help, or not help, in identifying the trailer hitch coupling location. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues: [N]either Talty nor Kashar provides any motivation for modifying the system of Talty with the puck 101 of Kashar, as Talty is aimed at identifying the second coupling 114 - not a puck, and Kashar’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the identification of any object with an imager-including the puck 101. Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 10 Appeal Br. 10-11. The Examiner responds, explaining that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 24 (citing In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347 (Fed. Cir. 1992); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s analysis of the cited references is facially deficient in supporting the finding of obviousness. See, e.g., Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (“Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.”). The Examiner makes no finding that Kashar is analogous art (see generally Final Act.) and we are unable to discern on this record how Kashar, which is directed to an “alarm monitoring system [that] provides various alerts of events that are not readily discernable to those individuals that are deaf or hard of hearing,” (Kashar, Abst.) might be analogous either because it is within the field of the instant application or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As to the former test, Kashar is not within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely systems for hitching a vehicle to a trailer, and more particularly, to hitch assist systems capable of identifying a trailer location through image processing. See Spec. ¶ 1. As to the latter test, rather than articulate why Kashar is reasonably pertinent to the particular Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 11 problem with which the inventor is involved (e.g., identification of trailer location (Spec. ¶ 2)), the Examiner asserts: “a visual indicator can be captured, processed, and be used to alert the user of the various circumstances that would help, or not help, in identifying the trailer hitch coupling location.” Final Act. 4. This statement is insufficient to carry the Examiner’s burden to set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” by relying on findings within analogous art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Because we agree with at least one of Appellant’s contentions of error, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 or the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20, which include language corresponding to the disputed limitation of claim 12. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20, each of which stands with its respective base claim. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of: a. claims 1-7, 11-15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, and (i) Davis or (ii) Chang; b. claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Sato and, (i) Davis or (ii) Chang; Appeal 2021-000140 Application 15/697,870 12 c. claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Shepard, Sato, Donnelly and (i) Davis or (ii) Chang; and d. claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Talty, Kashar, Shepard, Terwilliger, and (i) Davis or (ii) Chang. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 11-15, 19, 20 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Davis 1-7, 11-15, 19, 20 1-7, 11-15, 19, 20 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Chang 1-7, 11-15, 19, 20 8, 16 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Davis, Sato 8, 16 8, 16 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Chang, Sato 8, 16 9, 17 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Davis, Sato, Donnelly 9, 17 9, 17 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Chang, Sato, Donnelly 9, 17 10, 18 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Davis, Terwilliger 10, 18 10, 18 103 Talty, Kashar, Sheppard, Chang, Terwilliger 10, 18 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED