Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 25, 2021

2020005494 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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. 15/521,548 04/24/2017 Albrecht Irion BOSC.P10184US/1000356777 2105 24972 7590 03/25/2021 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6022 EXAMINER HUTCHINSON, ALAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2021 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): nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALBRECHT IRION, HANS-JOERG MATHONY, ROLF NICODEMUS, STEFAN HOFFMANN, STEFAN NORDBRUCH, and HOLGER MIELENZ Appeal 2020-005494 Application 15/521,548 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES P. CALVE, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15–28. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Robert Bosch GmbH (‘Robert Bosch’) of Stuttgart in the Federal Republic of Germany.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005494 Application 15/521,548 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Subject Matter on Appeal The Appellant’s “invention relates to a method and a device for guiding a vehicle in a parking lot.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 15, 25, 26, and 28 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 15. A method for guiding a vehicle in a parking lot, comprising: ascertaining, off-board the vehicle, a route in the parking lot from a starting position to a target position; transmitting at least a section of the route to the vehicle via a communications network, wherein the section is less than a total length of the route; and while the vehicle is driving on the section, monitoring the vehicle for a deviation in an autonomous travel of the section, with the aid of an off-board monitoring system. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Jung US 6,493,614 B1 Dec. 10, 2002 Sakuma US 9,983,020 B2 May 29, 2018 Nordbruch at el. (“Nordbruch”) US 10,048,698 B2 Aug. 14, 2018 Stefik et al. (“Stefik”) US 2012/0095790 A1 Apr. 19, 2012 Trepagnier et al. (“Trepagnier”) US 2012/0316725 A1 Dec. 13, 2012 Minoiu-Enache US 2015/0185734 A1 July 2, 2015 Noh US 2016/0033963 A1 Feb. 4, 2016 Grover et al. (“Grover”) US 2016/0116293 A1 Apr. 28, 2016 Appeal 2020-005494 Application 15/521,548 3 Rejections Claims 15–17, 19, 20, 22–26, and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6–11 of Nordbruch. Claims 15, 18–23, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma and Minoiu-Enache. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma and Jung. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma and Grover. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma and Trepagnier. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma and Stefik. ANALYSIS Double patenting The Appellant does not argue the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 15–17, 19, 20, 22–26, and 28 and expresses the willingness to “file a terminal disclaimer upon withdrawal of all other rejections and an indication that the present application is otherwise in condition for allowance.” Reply Br. 1. Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–17, 19, 20, 22–26, and 28 on the ground Appeal 2020-005494 Application 15/521,548 4 of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6–11 of Nordbruch. 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner’s rejection relies on a finding the Noh teaches substantially all of the subject matter of claim 15 except for “wherein the section is less than a total length of the route,” as recited in claim 15. See Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that “Noh appears to be silent as to the details as to how the commands are transmitted to the vehicle, and thus appears to be silent as to [‘]wherein the section is less than a total length of the route.[’]” Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Noh’s silence is remedied by Sakuma’s teachings. Id. The Examiner determines: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to provide the invention of Noh with [‘]wherein the section is less than a total length of the route[’] as taught by Sakuma so as to allow the autonomous vehicle to begin the journey to a parking spot before a particular spot is selected (i.e. the autonomous vehicle take some finite amount of time to traverse the parking lot during which time the available parking spots may change[)], transmitting the directions as taught by Sakuma allows the autonomous vehicle to select the most efficient parking spot upon arriving in the vicinity of the spot. . . . Additionally because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner adds: It would have been obvious to modify Noh with this method for the same reason that Sakuma teaches, that is to allow the autonomous vehicle to begin traveling immediately, before a final destination has been chosen, to give but one example, the autonomous vehicle of Noh could be sent instructions to travel Appeal 2020-005494 Application 15/521,548 5 to the 3rd floor of the parking garage, and then later sent instructions to park in particular parking spot, once said spot has been verified to be free. Ans. 5. The Appellant argues that Noh and Sakuma fail to teach or suggest the following recitation of claim 15: transmitting at least a section of the route to the vehicle via a communications network, wherein the section is less than a total length of the route; and while the vehicle is driving on the section, monitoring the vehicle for a deviation in an autonomous travel of the section, with the aid of an off-board monitoring system. Appeal Br. 4. Specifically, the Appellant contends that “[n]owhere, however, does Sakuma disclose a ‘section’ but rather a specific ‘point.’” Reply Br. 2. The “point” that the Appellant refers to is “a ‘provisional destination’ . . . along a route to a final destination having a specific latitude and longitude.” Id.; Appeal Br. 4. The provisional destination is a point “at which the boundary of the destination intersects with predetermined main roads.” Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of error as it fails to persuasively explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would distinguish Sakuma’s use of a provisional destination, i.e., a point, from a section that is less than a total length of the route as claimed. See also Ans. 5 (“Sakuma . . . teaches transmitting navigation instructions to an autonomous vehicle in sections.”). For example, the Appellant fails to explain why Sakuma’s provisional destination cannot be understood as a point that represents an end of one section and beginning of another section. Therefore, the use of a Sakuma’s teaching of a point would be indistinguishable from a section in which the section is less than a total route length. Appeal 2020-005494 Application 15/521,548 6 The Appellant contends that “in Sakuma, there is no monitoring the vehicle for a deviation in an autonomous travel of the section while travelling to the provisional destination.” Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant also contends, “in Noh, there is no disclosure, nor would there be a reason, to monitor the vehicle for a deviation in an autonomous travel while driving at a specific ‘point.’” Reply Br. 2. The Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of error. The Examiner explains that the Appellant appears to be arguing against the references individually whereas the rejection is based on the combination of references. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner further explains that Sakuma is relied on only “to teach, ‘the section is less than a total length of the route’” (id. at 4) and that Noh was relied on to teach the remainder of the claimed subject matter, including the step of monitoring the vehicle, while the vehicle is driving (see id. at 4–5). We agree with the Examiner’s explanation and determine that the Appellant does not persuasively explain how the combination of teachings from Noh and Sakuma fail to teach the subject matter of claim 15. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma. The Appellant does not separately argue any claim under this ground of rejection. Therefore, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–23, 25, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Noh in view of Sakuma. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Further, the Appellant does not provide a separate argument for the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16, 17, 20, 24, and 27. Appeal 2020-005494 Application 15/521,548 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15, 18–23, 25, 26, 28 103 Noh, Sakuma 15, 18–23, 25, 26, 28 16 103 Noh, Sakuma, Minoiu-Enache 16 17 103 Noh, Sakuma, Jung 17 20 103 Noh, Sakuma, Grover 20 24 103 Noh, Sakuma, Trepagnier 24 27 103 Noh, Sakuma, Stefik 27 15–17, 19, 20, 22–26, 28 Nonstatutory Double Patenting 15–17, 19, 20, 22–26, 28 Overall Outcome 15–28 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