Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 24, 2021

2020004625 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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. 15/248,048 08/26/2016 Sergei I. Gage 22562-2065 / 2016-053 7132 96411 7590 08/24/2021 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 EXAMINER PONTIUS, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2021 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): CincyPAIR@dinsmore.com elise.merkel@dinsmore.com jennifer.baker@dinsmore.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGEI I. GAGE and ARATA SATO Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, 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 1–11 and 13–20.2 See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Appellant amended the claims after the Final Rejection, cancelling claims 2 and 14. Resp. After Final Action dated Dec. 10, 2018, at 5; see also Appeal Br. 21, 23 (Claim App.). Per the Advisory Action dated December 27, 2018, the Examiner entered the proposed amendments for purposes of appeal. Now pending before us are claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–20. Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosure of the present application relates to weather detection systems in vehicles that verify externally provided weather information by detecting local weather conditions occurring outside the vehicle. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–2. By way of background, Appellant’s Specification describes vehicles that may “link to external devices, such as a cellular phone, to access information,” including “weather information,” which “may then be displayed to vehicle occupants using, for example, a vehicle display.” Id. ¶ 2. The weather information “may originate from any suitable source, for example, available over the internet,” and “may be in the form of weather radar data, weather forecast data, etc.” Id. ¶ 18. The Specification further notes, however, that remotely provided weather information may or may not be accurate at a particular vehicle location and at a particular time or over a particular period of time. In other words, remotely provided weather information may have a degree of uncertainty associated therewith as remotely provided current weather conditions may not be based on the collection of weather information locally. Thus, it may be desirable to provide increased certainty of an occurrence of a weather event before initiating a vehicle function in response to the weather event. Id. ¶ 32. Appellant’s Specification describes a method and system for “monitoring and verifying weather information using a weather condition detection system of a vehicle.” Id. ¶ 4. The Specification describes that the “internal weather information providing system” may comprise “cameras, LiDAR, RADAR, and proximity sensors.” Id. ¶ 26. For example, a vehicle video system may be used by the vehicle to “optically verify the remotely Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 3 provided weather information” by visually detecting weather immediately outside the vehicle (such as precipitation). Id. ¶ 34. A communications module inside the vehicle may then instruct the vehicle to perform an action based on the remotely and locally provided weather information, such as “close one or more windows.” Id. ¶ 35. Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, represents the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of monitoring and verifying weather information using a weather condition detection system of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving externally provided weather information as data from an external weather information providing system by a computing device within the vehicle; verifying the weather information locally at the vehicle using the computing device, wherein verifying the weather information includes optically verifying the weather information using a vehicle video system of the vehicle comprising a camera; and performing a vehicle function if the weather information is optically verified using the computing device. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REJECTION The Examiner rejects all pending claims (claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15– 20) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Baca et al., U.S. Application No. 2017/0274985 A1, published Sept. 28, 2017 (“Baca”). Final Act. 5–8. Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 4 OPINION For essentially the reasons argued by Appellant (Appeal Br. 17–20; Reply Br. 3–5), we are persuaded of Examiner error at least in the finding that Baca discloses “verifying the weather information locally at the vehicle using the computing device, wherein verifying the weather information includes optically verifying the weather information using a vehicle video system of the vehicle comprising a camera,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 17.3 See Final Act. 5– 6. The Examiner finds Baca discloses the subject matter of claim 1. With regard to the step of “receiving externally provided weather information . . . ,” the Examiner cites to (1) Figure 1, element 108 of Baca, as including a wireless communications interface; (2) paragraphs 37–39 of Baca as disclosing transmitting weather data “from vehicle 102 through network 150 to a cloud server that collects and stores remote weather data”; and (3) paragraph 63 of Baca as disclosing “vehicle controller 302 receives data of an environmental event 130 from remote server 152 or remote device 154.” Ans. 12. The Examiner does not expressly state, however, what information in Baca is mapped to the claimed “externally provided weather information.” The only information in the cited disclosures of Baca, however, that is received by a computing device within the vehicle (as 3 Appellant’s contentions present additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 5 opposed to transmitted from the vehicle) is described in paragraph 63 of Baca, which states: the proactive vehicle controller 302 may receive data indicative of the predicted prospective force 132 exerted on the vehicle chassis 104 by the environmental event 130 from one or more remote devices, for example from one or more servers 152 or similar network connected remote processor-based devices 154. Baca ¶ 63 (emphasis added).4 The Examiner then finds Baca discloses “verifying the externally provided weather information locally at the vehicle using the locally provided weather information and the computing device” by disclosing (1) the vehicle includes an image acquisition device (Ans. 12 (citing Baca ¶¶ 32–33); (2) “a 3D camera is used to verify the veracity of the collected weather data that has been transmitted to Circuit 108” (id. at 12–13 (citing Baca ¶ 39)); and (3) “vehicle controller 302 uses data of an environmental event 130 from a) remote server 152 or remote device 154 and b) Data Image Acquisition Device 112, to determine prospective force 132” (id. at 13 (citing Baca ¶ 63)). The Examiner finds “[t]his use of local image data is a verification of remote data.” Id. at 13. Appellant argues the Examiner’s finding is in error because “Baca does not disclose optical verification of external weather information using the computing device, but rather discloses that data collected can be verified without providing any specific form of verification means.” Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 3–4. We are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. The Examiner relies on paragraph 39 of Baca as disclosing verification of collected data. 4 All bolding of reference numbers has been omitted herein. Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 6 Ans. 12–13. However, paragraph 39 of Baca does not disclose verification locally at the vehicle of externally provided weather information. Rather, Baca discloses, in paragraph 39, that a vehicle “may, for example, be used to capture data or information on environmental or weather events that are transient in nature and consequently rarely encountered.” Baca ¶ 39 (emphasis added). Baca goes on to state that “[i]n implementations, such as implementations where a 3D camera is used to collect environmental data, the presence of additional environmental or geographic information may be sufficient to verify the time, date, location, and veracity of the collected environmental or weather data.” Id. Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s finding that Baca discloses the verification is done at the vehicle, and asserts that a better reading of paragraph 39 is that the verification is done remotely. Reply Br. 3. We agree that Baca is silent in regard to where or how the verification occurs. We further note that, to the extent Baca discloses in paragraph 39 any verification of information, it is verification of information that was collected locally by the vehicle, not externally provided weather information. The same is true for Baca’s disclosures in paragraphs 37–38, which disclose that the vehicle collects weather information and uploads it to a server, rather than the other way around. The Examiner also relies on paragraph 63 of Baca as disclosing information received by the vehicle from a remote device. Ans. 13. The only information disclosed therein as being received by the vehicle is “data indicative of the predicted prospective force” that may be exerted on the vehicle by an environmental event. Baca ¶ 63. But if the “predicted prospective force” is what the Examiner maps to the “externally provided Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 7 weather information,” the Examiner’s findings regarding the verifying step are lacking because the Examiner makes no findings to support that any verification of such information is performed “locally at the vehicle,” much less done “optically,” as required by claim 1. Thus, the cited disclosures of Baca do not support the Examiner’s findings that Baca discloses externally provided weather information that is optically verified locally at the vehicle. We are, therefore, persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are insufficient to show that Baca discloses at least “verifying the information locally at the vehicle using the computing device, wherein the weather information includes optically verifying the weather information using a vehicle video system of the vehicle comprising a camera,” as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 17. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 17, and we, therefore, do not sustain that rejection. The dependent claims stand with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–20 is reversed. Appeal 2020-004625 Application 15/248,048 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–11, 13, 15–20 102(a)(2) Baca 1, 3–11, 13, 15–20 REVERSED