SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 25, 2020

2019003231 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
15/151,877 05/11/2016 Jason PALMER 45YN-223872 6148
159291 7590 08/25/2020
Esplin & Associates, PC
5411 Avenida Encinas
Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
EXAMINER
MERLINO, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2020 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@esplin.legal
cpearsall@esplin.legal
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON PALMER, MARK FREITAS, DANIEL A. DENINGER,
DAVID FORNEY, SLAVEN SLJIVAR, ALEKH VAIDYA, and
JEFFREY GRISWOLD

Appeal 2019-003231
Application 15/151,877
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, 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 1, 7–14, and 20–26, and 28–31. An
oral hearing was held on July 30, 2020. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
SmartDrive Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003231
Application 15/151,877

2
We REVERSE.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A system configured to capture information based on
detected vehicle events, the system configured to couple with a
vehicle, the system comprising:
electronic storage configured to electronically store
information, wherein the electronic storage is carried by the
vehicle;
a set of sensors configured to generate output signals
conveying information related to current operating conditions
of the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is carried by the
vehicle;
a set of cameras configured to capture image data,
wherein the set of cameras is carried by the vehicle, wherein the
set of cameras includes a first camera, a second camera, and a
third camera configured to capture image data, and wherein the
set of cameras includes at least one interior camera configured
to capture visual information inside the vehicle; and
one or more processors configured to:
determine the current operating conditions of the
vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, wherein
determination is based on the generated output signals;
detect vehicle events while the vehicle is in motion
based on driving maneuvers the vehicle is performing,
wherein detection of the vehicle events is based on the
determined current operating conditions related to
information conveyed by the generated output signals
from at least two different sensors in the set of sensors,
wherein the driving maneuvers include one or more of
swerving, a U-turn, freewheeling, over-revving, lane-
departure, short following distance, imminent collision,
unsafe turning that approaches rollover, hard braking,
rapid acceleration, idling, driving outside a geofence
boundary, crossing double-yellow lines, passing on
single-lane roads, a certain number of lane changes
within a certain amount of time or distance, fast lane
Appeal 2019-003231
Application 15/151,877

3
change, cutting off other vehicles during lane-change
speeding, running a red light, and/or running a stop sign,
wherein the detected vehicle events include a first vehicle
event, a second vehicle event, and a third vehicle event;
determine a first event type for the first vehicle
event based on a first driving maneuver the vehicle is
performing, a second event type for the second vehicle
event based on a second driving maneuver the vehicle is
performing, and a third event type for the third vehicle
event based on a third driving maneuver the vehicle is
performing, wherein the first, second, and third event
types are different event types corresponding to different
driving maneuvers;
responsive to detection of the first vehicle event,
and based on the first event type, select a first subset of
cameras from the set of cameras, wherein the first subset
of cameras includes the first camera and excludes at least
one of the second and third cameras;
responsive to detection of the second vehicle
event, and based on the second event type, select a
second subset of cameras from the set of cameras,
wherein the second subset of cameras includes the
second camera and excludes at least one of the first and
third cameras;
responsive to detection of the third vehicle event,
and based on the third event type, select a third subset of
cameras from the set of cameras, wherein the third subset
of cameras includes the third camera and excludes at
least one of the first and second cameras;
capture first image data by the first subset of
cameras proximate in time to the first vehicle event;
capture second image data by the second subset of
cameras proximate in time to the second vehicle event;
capture third image data by the third subset of
cameras proximate in time to the third vehicle event;
Appeal 2019-003231
Application 15/151,877

4
generate a first event record associated with the
first vehicle event, wherein the first event record includes
the captured first image data;
generate a second event record associated with the
second vehicle event, wherein the second event record
includes the captured second image data;
generate a third event record associated with the
third vehicle event, wherein the third event record
includes the captured third image data;
store the first, second, and third event record in the
electronic storage; and
transmit the first, second, and third event records
from the electronic storage to a remote server that is
external to the vehicle.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Cook et al.
(“Cook” herein)
US 2010/0191411 A1 July 29, 2010
Tseng US 2013/0208119 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Lambert et al.
(“Lambert” herein)
US 2015/0088335 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10–14, 20, 21, and 23–26, and 28–30 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lambert.2
II. Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lambert and Tseng.3

2 The Final Action (at page 3) inadvertently states that Rejection I includes
claims 9, 22, 27, and 31.
3 The Final Action (at page 9) inadvertently omits the reliance on Lambert,
in addition to Tseng, in rejecting claims 9 and 22.
Appeal 2019-003231
Application 15/151,877

5
III. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lambert and Cook.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues: “The rejection of independent claim 1 based
on Lambert is erroneous and must be reversed at least because none of the
cited references teach or suggest selecting a subset of cameras based on a
vehicle event type.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Final Action 5–6). The
Appellant’s argument refers to the following limitations recited in claim 1:
responsive to detection of the first vehicle event, and
based on the first event type, select a first subset of cameras
from the set of cameras, wherein the first subset of cameras
includes the first camera and excludes at least one of the second
and third cameras;
responsive to detection of the second vehicle event, and
based on the second event type, select a second subset of
cameras from the set of cameras, wherein the second subset of
cameras includes the second camera and excludes at least one
of the first and third cameras; [and]
responsive to detection of the third vehicle event, and
based on the third event type, select a third subset of cameras
from the set of cameras, wherein the third subset of cameras
includes the third camera and excludes at least one of the first
and second cameras.
According to the Appellant, these features are not disclosed in Lambert,
which the Examiner relies upon for such teaching. Id. at 9–14. Lambert
discloses the creation of an “event manifest” containing a “minimum event
data set,” relating to a vehicle event, such as a “possible collision event.”
Appeal 2019-003231
Application 15/151,877

6
Lambert ¶ 20. Lambert further discloses that an “event manifest” may
include video data. Id. ¶ 27. Yet, the Appellant argues: “Lambert does not
appear to describe any kind of selection of cameras, much less subsets of
cameras,” as claim 1 requires. Appeal Br. 12.
Responding to the Appellant’s argument, the Examiner maintains that
Lambert’s paragraphs 17, 20, and 22, and Figure 4 teach the identified
limitations:
As seen in figure 4 and described in cited paragraph(s) 20 and
22, the video data recorder receives sensor data in step 400 and
determines an event type based on the data in steps 402 and
404. In step 406, a minimum event data set is determine[d]
based on the event type and comprises a subset of the data, i.e.,
only the data necessary. Paragraph(s) 17 lists the data that can
be captured by the vehicle and included in the minimum event
data set, including internal and external video cameras. In step
408, an event manifest is created with the event identifier, event
type, and minimum event data set as disclosed in paragraph(s)
22 to be sent to a remote server (vehicle data server).
Therefore, as summarized in figure 4, the vehicle event recorder
on the vehicle receives sensor data, detects vehicle events,
determines the event type based on the sensor data, selects the
minimum event data set, including necessary camera data
proximate the even, based on the event type and creates a
vehicle event manifest comprising the event identifier, event
type, and minimum event data set. One of ordinary skill in the
art would interpret Lambert as disclosing that an event manifest
created for one event would include video data from one
camera and not a second camera, and another event manifest
created for a second event would include data from the second
camera and not the first.
Answer 4.
However, as the Appellant points out, Lambert does not disclose
selecting any “subset of cameras from the set of cameras,” as claim 1 recites.
Appeal 2019-003231
Application 15/151,877

7
Reply Br. 6. We see no express disclosure of such a selection, in the cited
portion of the reference, and the Examiner does not explain adequately why
one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Lambert to include such a
selection of a subset of cameras.
Accordingly we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
For the same reason (see Appeal Br. 14, Answer 5), we also do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 14, the only other independent claim in
the Appeal.
None of the other references is applied to overcome the identified
deficiency in Lambert. See Final Action 10–11.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7–14, 20–26,
and 28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 8, 10–
14, 20, 21,
23–26,
28–30
103 Lambert 1, 7, 8,
10–14, 20,
21, 23–26,
28–30
9, 22 103 Lambert, Tseng 9, 22
31 103 Lambert, Cook 31
Overall
Outcome
1, 7–14,
20–26,
28–31

REVERSED