Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2021005200 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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. 16/527,601 07/31/2019 Sayaka Ono 94377-981 08TMCT106402PA 8687 25006 7590 02/02/2022 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 900 WILSHIRE DRIVE SUITE 300 TROY, MI 48084 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): MichiganPatTM@dinsmore.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAYAKA ONO and YOSHITAKA FUWAMOTO Appeal 2021-005200 Application 16/527,601 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, 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 to reject claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard the appeal on January 24, 2022. We REVERSE. 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 Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-005200 Application 16/527,601 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a “[d]isplay device.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A display device comprising an electronic control unit configured to: obtain a traveling plan from an automatic driving system of a vehicle, the traveling plan including a course of the vehicle under automatic drive control of the automatic driving system; obtain, from the automatic driving system, a system confidence level of the automatic drive control calculated based on at least an external environment around the vehicle; and display, on a display, a pointer as an image indicating the course during the automatic drive control in a display mode set based on the system confidence level. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sasaki US 2016/0195407 A1 July 7, 2016 Tuukkanen US 2020/0041997 A1 Feb. 6, 2020 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sasaki. Final Act. 3-6. Claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sasaki and Tuukkanen. Final Act. 7-9. Appeal 2021-005200 Application 16/527,601 3 OPINION The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14-16 by Sasaki The Examiner finds Sasaki describes all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3-4. In particular, the Examiner finds Sasaki’s traveling plan formulation section 103 and obstacle detection section 104 in controller 10 describes “obtain, from the automatic driving system, a system confidence level of the automatic drive control calculated based on at least an external environment around the vehicle” (claim 1). Final Act. 3-4 (citing Sasaki ¶¶ 59, 65-67, Fig. 4). Appellant presents the following principal argument: “While the presence of an obstacle may be part of the external environment around the vehicle, there is no discussion in Sasaki of a system confidence level being calculated or obtained.” Appeal Br. 13. “Sasaki merely discloses that the traveling plan formulation section 103 may formulate the traveling plan depending on the result of the presence or absence of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection section 104.” Appeal Br. 13-14. In response, the Examiner explains Sasaki’s varying the speed depending on the presence or absence of an obstacle describes the system confidence level of claim 1. Ans. 3-4. In reply, Appellant argues “[t]here is no discussion in Sasaki of a confidence level associated with the automatic drive control, much less a confidence level that corresponds to the possibility of continuing automatic drive control.” Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2021-005200 Application 16/527,601 4 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant’s Specification discloses The system confidence level calculating unit 36 calculates the system confidence level of the automatic drive control. The system confidence level is an index indicating the reliability of automatic drive control. The system confidence level corresponds to the possibility of continuing automatic drive control. The automatic driving system 2 finishes automatic drive control when the system confidence level becomes lower than an end threshold value, for example, and switches the vehicle to a driving mode in which the vehicle is mainly operated by the driver. Spec. ¶ 28 (emphasis added). In light of the Specification, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of “system confidence level” requires a value that indicates the reliability of automatic drive control, and corresponds to the possibility of continuing automatic drive control. Given our interpretation of “system confidence level,” we determine the Examiner erred in finding Sasaki teaches “obtain, from the automatic driving system, a system confidence level of the automatic drive control calculated based on at least an external environment around the vehicle” as recited in claim 1, for reasons further explained below. Sasaki discloses The traveling plan formulation section 103 serving as a predicted traveling state setting section sets the vehicle 100 to either the driving (or accelerating) state or the braking (or decelerating) state depending on the result of the presence or absence of the obstacle or the distance between the vehicle 100 and the obstacle detected. Appeal 2021-005200 Application 16/527,601 5 Sasaki ¶ 68. Thus, although Sasaki discloses detecting the presence or absence of an obstacle, and in response, sets the vehicle to a driving state or a braking state, there is no teaching of a value that indicates the reliability of automatic drive control, and corresponds to the possibility of continuing automatic drive control. Put another way, Sasaki is silent as to the reliability of automatic drive control, and the possibility of continuing automatic drive control; instead, Sasaki only describes the action taken by the automatic drive control. Sasaki. ¶ 68. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6- 8, which depend from claim 1. Independent claim 9 recites essentially the same subject matter as claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14-16, which depend from claim 9. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 over Sasaki and Tuukkanen The Examiner does not find Tuukkanen cures the deficiency of Sasaki. See Final Act. 7-9. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5, 10, and 13. Appeal 2021-005200 Application 16/527,601 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-16 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14- 16 102(a)(1) Sasaki 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14- 16 2, 5, 10, 13 103 Sasaki and Tuukkanen 2, 5, 10, 13 Overall Outcome 1-16 REVERSED