FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

14949297 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)

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.
14/949,297 11/23/2015 Tuan Anh BE 83588693 1084
28395 7590 09/23/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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 TUAN ANH BE, NOORULLA MOHAMMED,
NICHOLAS COLELLA, and ALLEN R. MURRAY
____________________

Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a system for vehicular environment alerts.
According to the Specification, a processor is configured to issue an alert to
a user mobile device upon determining that image data captured in response
to a vehicle-related state condition associated with the alert correlates to

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
2
stored image data designated to represent an alert condition. Spec. ¶ 3. The
Specification discloses inputs to the processor that allow the user to interface
with the processor, such as by taking a picture of a closed garage door that
the vehicle read camera could compare to the saved picture to determine if
the garage door is closed behind the vehicle, and outputs to the system that
can include a visual display or speaker output. Id. ¶¶ 13, 14, 28. The
Specification also discloses interior and exterior sensors or cameras to detect
movement inside and outside the vehicle and tie them to a “user leaves
proximity” state to determine, for example, whether a child has been left
inside the vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 37, 38.
Independent claims 1 and 20, reproduced below, are illustrative
(disputed limitations are italicized).
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
issue an alert to a user mobile device upon a
determination that image data, captured in response to a
vehicle-related state condition associated with the alert,
correlates to stored image data designated to represent an alert
condition.
20. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
display one or more vehicle camera images viewed by
one or more vehicle cameras, on a vehicle display in response
to a configuration request;
capture one or more images upon user selection; and
store the images and corresponding user selected vehicle
state data designating when the captured images should be
used for an alert comparison.
Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
3
Appeal Br. Appendix 1, 3 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 12
is similar to claim 1 reciting “sensor data parameters” in place of
“image data.”
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Lowenthal US 2011/0148662 A1 June 23, 2011
Donishi US 2014/0085473 A1 Mar. 27, 2014
Shin US 2015/0002620 A1 Jan. 1, 2015
Yu US 2016/0046324 A1 Feb. 18, 2016
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
1, 6, 8–10, 12, 14, 16–18, 20 102(a)(1) Shin
2–5, 7, 13, 19 103 Shin, Lowenthal
11 103 Shin, Donishi
15 103 Shin, Yu

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
Appellant separately argues independent claims 1 and 20 and groups
independent claim 12 with claim 1. Appeal Br. 5–6. We address claims 1
and 20 below.
Claim 1
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Shin anticipates
claim 1 because Shin’s alerts are issued in vehicle rather than via a mobile
device as claim 1 requires. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Shin ¶ 165). In the Reply
Brief, Appellant acknowledges that Shin’s paragraph 128 discloses Shin’s
image display device can be variably applicable to smart phones, but asserts
Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
4
the Examiner failed to demonstrate how using a smart phone would capture
image data in response to a vehicle-related state condition associated with
the alert. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s reliance on
Shin’s paragraph 140 shows a vehicle-mounted camera, which would not be
applicable to a mobile device embodiment because a mobile device does not
include cameras fixedly mounted to bumpers. Id. (citing Shin ¶¶ 139–40).
Appellant also contends Shin’s system fails to capture images in
response to a vehicle-related state condition, and instead, captures images in
response to a user pressing a user capture button, which is neither a “vehicle-
related state condition” nor a “state condition associated with an alert.” Id.
(citing Shin ¶ 159). According to Appellant, claim 1 requires a previously
saved “alert” image and a vehicle-related state condition associated with the
alert whereas Shin’s image analysis process captures an image in response to
a user changing gears, not in response to a vehicle-related state condition
associated with the alert. Id. at 5. Appellant further argues that Shin’s
distance determination designates the alert condition rather than Shin’s
previously captured obstacle image. Id. Appellant contrasts Shin with
Appellant’s invention wherein the alert conditions are represented by the
images themselves, such as an open garage door. Id. at 6.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Each of independent claims 1 and 12 requires issuing an alert “in
response to a vehicle-related state condition associated with the alert.”
Appeal Br. Appendix 1, 2 (Claims Appendix). This claim limitation
encompasses Shin’s vehicle gear state, that is, the vehicle shifting into a
Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
5
forward gear or a reverse gear, causing an alert. As the Examiner points out,
Shin’s controller
determines whether or not a reverse gear or a forward gear of
the vehicle has been selected on the basis of the vehicle gear
shifting information, and operates the rear camera . . . of the
vehicle to capture a rear image when the reverse gear has been
selected or automatically operate the front camera . . . to capture
a front image when the forward gear of the vehicle has been
selected.
Ans. 10 (citing Shin ¶ 140). Appellant’s assertion that Shin’s distance
determination designates the alert condition rather than Shin’s previously
captured obstacle image is not persuasive because Appellant does not direct
us to any limitation in claim 1 that precludes Shin’s distance determination
step. This difference between Appellant’s claimed invention and Shin’s
disclosure does not distinguish Shin’s system from the claimed system
because the transitional term “comprising” in claim 1 encompasses Shin’s
additional step. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner failed to
demonstrate how a smart phone would achieve the limitation that the image
data captured with a smart phone would be in response to a vehicle-related
state condition associated with the alert is not persuasive of error because
Appellant does not direct us to any requirement in claim 1 that a mobile
device must capture the recited “image data.” Moreover, as Appellant notes,
Shin’s paragraph 128 explains that the image display device “can be variably
applicable to smart phones,” a “navigation device,” or “the like.” Shin ¶ 128.
Shin’s Figure 10 discloses that an obstacle image is captured in step S22 and
output warning information is issued in step S26. Shin Fig. 10, ¶¶ 158–165.
Claim 1 does not require the image data be captured a smart phone or even
Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
6
to the same smart phone or “user mobile device” to which the alert is issued.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument differentiating the claims over the cited
prior art on the basis of “issue an alert to a user mobile device upon a
determination that image data, captured in response to a vehicle-related state
condition associated with the alert” is not persuasive of error.
Claim 20
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding
that Shin discloses storing “image” or “user selected vehicle state data” as
required by claim 20. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts that Shin’s data
referenced in paragraph 75 is comparison data that is not taught to be data
captured by a user. Id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error
because the Examiner’s finding that Shin teaches the pre-set distance value
may be changed by the user is supported by the record. Ans. 10; Shin ¶ 134.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s citation to Shin’s
paragraph 174 does not support the anticipation rejection of claim 20. Reply
Br. 2–3. This argument was not presented in the Appeal Brief, and
Appellants have not proffered a showing of good cause explaining why the
argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. The Examiner
cited Shin’s paragraph 174 in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 5. This
citation in connection with the rejection of claim 20 does not appear in either
Appellant’s Appeal Brief or the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, we will not
consider this new and untimely argument in our assessment of the
Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection. 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37, 41.41; see Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
Thus, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 12, and 20 and in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation based upon Shin’s disclosure.
Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
7
For the above reasons and those provided in the Final Office Action
and the Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection of
independent claims 1, 12, and 20. We also sustain the Examiner’s
§ 102(a)(1) rejection of dependent claims 6, 8–10, 12, 14, 16–18, argued for
their dependency from claim 1 or 12. Appeal Br. 6.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellant asserts that none of the secondary references relied upon by
the Examiner for the obviousness rejections cure the alleged deficiencies of
Shin with respect to claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 7. Because we do not find
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 over Shin for the
reasons discussed above, we likewise do not find error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–5, 7, 11, 13, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–20.

Appeal 2019-003031
Application 14/949,297
8
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–20.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 8–10, 12,
14, 16–18, 20 102(a)(1) Shin
1, 6, 8–10, 12,
14, 16–18, 20
2–5, 7, 13, 19 103 Shin, Lowenthal 2–5, 7, 13, 19
11 103 Shin, Donishi 11
15 103 Shin, Yu 15
Overall
Outcome 1–20
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