SmartDrive Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2021

2019004553 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
14/540,825 11/13/2014 Jason PALMER 45YN-213638 1372
159291 7590 03/03/2021
Esplin & Associates, PC
3524 Lone Pine Lane
San Marcos, CA 92078
EXAMINER
GEBREMICHAEL, BRUK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2021 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):
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, SLAVEN SLJIVAR, MARK FREITAS,
DANIEL A. DENINGER, and JEFFREY TODD GRISWOLD
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
Technology Center 3700
Before SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final rejection (dated February 22, 2018, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) of claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, 18 and 20–26.2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on August 20, 2020.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SmartDrive
Systems, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 6, 8, 17, and 19 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 52, 58.
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to a system and method for detecting a
vehicle event and generating review criteria that correspond to the vehicle
event.” Spec. 1. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced with emphasis added to highlight the elements central to the
dispute in this appeal.
1. A system configured to detect a vehicle event and generate
review criteria for manual review, wherein the review criteria
correspond to the vehicle event, a portion of the system
configured to couple with a vehicle, the system comprising:
multiple video capture devices configured to acquire
visual output information representing a vehicle environment,
the individual video capture devices having separate
corresponding fields of view of the vehicle environment, the
vehicle environment including spaces in and around an
interior and an exterior of the vehicle;
one or more sensors configured to generate output signals
conveying vehicle operation information related to the
operation and/or context of the vehicle; and
one or more physical computer processors configured by
computer readable instructions to:
detect, in real-time or near real-time, the vehicle
event based on the vehicle operation information conveyed by
the output signals;
determine a vehicle event type based on the vehicle
operation information conveyed by the output signals;
responsive to the detection of the vehicle event,
generate one or more review criteria that correspond to the
detected vehicle event, wherein the one or more review
criteria are generated based on the vehicle event type,
wherein the one or more review criteria include one or more
of a question, an inquiry, or a prompt for a manual reviewer,
wherein the one or more review criteria are used to prompt
the manual reviewer to provide manual reviewer input
describing the detected vehicle event based on the acquired
visual output information;
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
3
facilitate communication of:
(i) the vehicle operation information,
(ii) the acquired visual output information,
and
(iii) the generated one or more review criteria
to a remote computing device that is remote and separate from
the vehicle;
facilitate, at the remote computing device, display
of a customizable reviewer interface, wherein the
customizable reviewer interface displays, to the manual
reviewer:
(i) the generated one or more review criteria
to prompt the manual reviewer to provide the manual
reviewer input describing the detected vehicle event based on
the acquired visual output information,
(ii) a portion of the vehicle operation
information generated during the detected vehicle event,
(iii) an input field configured to accept the
manual reviewer input from the manual reviewer describing
the detected vehicle event, and
(iv) a portion of the acquired visual output
information acquired during the detected vehicle event,
wherein the portion of the acquired visual output information
includes individual ones of the fields of view corresponding
to the video capture devices, wherein the manual reviewer
input received from the manual reviewer is responsive to one
or more of the question, the inquiry, or the prompt describing
the detected vehicle event, and wherein the manual reviewer
input is based on the acquired visual output information; and
generate a vehicle event record for the vehicle
event, wherein the vehicle event record includes the manual
reviewer input.
Appeal Br. 49–51 (App. A).

Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
4

EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Comeau US 2008/0143834 A1 June 19, 2008
Hoffman US 9,607,526 B1 Mar. 28, 2017
Nielsen US 2011/0282542 A9 Nov. 17, 2011
Scaman US 2002/0135679 A1 Sept. 26, 2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite.
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 12–16, 18, 20, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Comeau, Hoffman, and Nielsen.
Claims 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Scaman, Hoffman, and Nielsen.
OPINION
Indefiniteness of Claims 21, 22, and 26
Claim 21, as well as claims 22 and 26 depending therefrom, were
rejected by the Examiner because “there is insufficient antecedent basis” for
the recited “the acquired vehicle operation information.” Final Act. 2.
Appellant concedes that the use of “acquired” in this recited phrase is an
error. Appeal Br. 11–12 (“[T]he use of the term ‘acquired’ in this phrase is a
clear and obvious typographical error.”). Nevertheless, Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection should be reversed because
“[c]laim 21 clearly uses the phrase ‘vehicle operation information’
consistently in four other places in claim 21 prior to this typographical error,
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
5
such that the reader will not be confused about the claim or its scope.” Id.
at 12. We disagree.
A claim is properly rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) if,
after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification, the metes and bounds of a claim are not clear because the
claim “contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314(Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam)
(approving, for pre-issuance claims, the standard from MPEP § 2173.05(e));
see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5
(PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach for assessing
indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard). Further, claims,
when read in light of the specification, must “reasonably apprise those
skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of the invention” using
language “as precise as the subject matter permits.” Packard, 751 F.3d at
1313. In determining whether a claim is definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b),
“[t]he USPTO, in examining an application, is obliged to test the claims for
reasonable precision according to [this principle].” Id.
The Examiner correctly finds the admitted error creates ambiguity.
Although claim 21 does use “vehicle operation information” elsewhere in
the claim, the introduction of “acquired vehicle operation information”
creates uncertainty about whether it is the same as or different than those
other recitations of “vehicle operation information.” Additionally,
Appellant’s admission that including “acquired” is a mistake and suggestion
that a skilled artisan would simply read it out of the claims, shows the
subject matter certainly allows for more precise language to be used to
apprise a skilled artisan of the scope of the invention. Therefore, we sustain
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
6
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, as well as claims 22 and 26 depending
therefrom, as failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

Obviousness of Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 12–16, 18, 20, 23, and 25
The Examiner determines that independent claims 1 and 12 recite
obvious subject matter in view of the combined disclosures of Comeau,
Hoffman, and Nielsen. Final Act. 3–17. Appellant contends, among other
things, that the Examiner’s determination was in error because it lacks
sufficient evidence that the prior art references disclose or suggest
generating the recited review criteria that corresponds to a detected vehicle
event. Appeal Br. 13–20, 29. For the following reasons, we agree.
Claim 1 recites:
responsive to the detection of the vehicle event, generate one or
more review criteria that correspond to the detected vehicle
event, wherein the one or more review criteria are generated
based on the vehicle event type, wherein the one or more review
criteria include one or more of a question, an inquiry, or a prompt
for a manual reviewer, wherein the one or more review criteria
are used to prompt the manual reviewer to provide manual
reviewer input describing the detected vehicle event based on the
acquired visual output information.
Id. at 49–50 (App. A). Claim 12 includes a substantially similar limitation.
Id. at 55–56. For this element, the Examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Comeau and Hoffman; Nielsen was not relied upon. See Final
Act. 4–9, 12–16.
The Examiner finds that, because Comeau discloses “the
computer/microprocessor . . . synchronizes the vehicle data . . . with the
corresponding video data . . . , and thereby judges the driving proficiency of
the driver,” it “indicates the generation of one or more review criteria
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
7
corresponding to the detected vehicle event in response to the detection of
the vehicle event, wherein the one or more review criteria are generated
based on the vehicle event type.” Id. at 5, 11 (citing Comeau ¶¶ 26, 27, 30,
31) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Comeau’s disclosure does
not describe a
review criteria for manual review; the one or more review criteria
include one or more of a question, an inquiry, or a prompt for a
manual reviewer, wherein the one or more review criteria are
used to prompt the manual reviewer to provide manual reviewer
input describing the detected vehicle event based on the acquired
visual output information.
Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted). For this, the Examiner turns to Hoffman and
finds that it
discloses a system that detects one or more vehicle events of a
vehicle that a driver operates ( e.g. vehicle braking event, vehicle
turning event, etc.), and thereby presents, via a reviewer
interface, one or more prompts or information to a coach (i.e. a
manual reviewer) who is accompanying the driver in the vehicle;
such as, displaying some information to the coach in response to
the detected vehicle event(s), etc., and thereby the coach
advi[s]es the driver based on one or more of the prompts
presented on the interface; and wherein the coach is also
prompted to provide one or more inputs via an input field on the
interface, such as inputs responsive to an inquiry or the detected
vehicle event.
Id. at 7–8 (citing Hoffman, 3:5–22, 10:1–39, 12:23–50).
The Examiner’s findings are deficient because none of the evidence
cited from Comeau or Hoffman shows a system that “generate[s] one or
more review criteria that correspond to the detected vehicle event.” We
agree Comeau discloses a computer system that synchronizes vehicle data
with the corresponding video data and is able to “judge” a driver’s driving
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
8
proficiency, but the Examiner has not shown that the system detects a
vehicle event to “generate” the criteria for evaluating a driver’s performance.
First, none of paragraphs 26, 27, 30, and 31 identified from Comeau
describes a system that itself judges a driver’s driving proficiency. To the
contrary, paragraph 27 of Comeau teaches that the system “allows a person
to judge the driving proficiency of the driver 44 operating the vehicle 13.”
(emphasis added). Second, although paragraph 29 of Comeau (which is not
cited by the Examiner) does teach that the system “allows a completely
independent and unbiased examination of the driver’s performance” for a
“pass/fail test” (e.g., “a driver’s examination for a driver's license in a
particular state), this only suggests a vehicle event is compared to an
evaluation criteria to determine whether the driver passes/fails the test, rather
than supporting sufficiently that the system uses a vehicle event to generate
a review criteria corresponding to the detected vehicle event or that is based
on the vehicle event type.
Turning to Hoffman, we agree with the Examiner that Hoffman
discloses a system that detects vehicle events (e.g. vehicle braking event,
vehicle turning event, etc.) and presents, via a reviewer interface, prompts or
information for an instructor to coach the driver of the vehicle. In addition,
we agree Hoffman discloses displaying prompts to the coach to provide
inputs, via an input field on the interface, about the driver’s actions and/or
the effectiveness of the coaching. However, the Examiner does not identify
any evidence from Hoffman that suggests the system generates a review
criteria corresponding to a detected vehicle event that prompts the driver’s
coach to provide input describing the detected vehicle event. Instead,
Hoffman’s teachings focus on training a driver to operate a vehicle properly
when detected vehicle events occur and providing input associated with the
Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
9
coaching and the driver’s response to such coaching, rather than a system
that generates a review criteria corresponding to the detected vehicle event
to prompt an input to describe the detected vehicle event itself. Put
differently, Hoffman focuses on the driver’s behavior and the driver’s
subsequent response to coaching, rather than reviewing the vehicle event
itself and prompting a reviewer to provide input about the vehicle event
itself.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 12, as well as 2–5, 7, 9, 13–16, 18, 20, 23, and 25
depending therefrom.

Obviousness of Claims 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 26
The Examiner determines that independent claims 10 and 21 recite
obvious subject matter in view of the combined disclosures of Scaman,
Hoffman, and Nielsen. Final Act. 23–32. Appellant contends, among other
things, that the Examiner’s determination was in error because it lacks
sufficient evidence that the prior art references disclose or suggest
generating the recited review criteria that corresponds to a detected vehicle
event. Appeal Br. 29–35, 43–44. The Examiner relies on Hoffman to
disclose this claim element. Final Act. 26–28, 32. Because the Examiner’s
analysis of Hoffman for claims 10 and 21 mirrors the one provided for the
similar element found in claims 1 and 12, for the reasons discussed above,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 21, as well as
11, 21, 22, 24, and 26.

Appeal 2019-004553
Application 14/540,825
10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 22, 26 112(b) Definiteness 21, 22, 26
1–5, 7, 9,
12–16, 18,
20, 23, 25

103(a)
Comeau, Hoffman,
Nielsen
1–5, 7, 9, 12–
16, 18, 20,
23, 25
10, 11, 21,
22, 24, 26
103(a) Scaman, Hoffman,
Nielsen
10, 11, 21,
22, 24, 26
Overall
Outcome
21, 22, 26 1–5, 7, 9–16,
18, 20, 23, 25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART