Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 18, 20212020000780 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/893,206 02/09/2018 Hans M. MOLIN 102761.66245C1 8879 87369 7590 05/18/2021 Crowell & Morning LLP Intellectual Property Group P.O. Box 14300 Washington, DC 20044-4300 EXAMINER AN, SHAWN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2021 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): edocket@crowell.com mloren@crowell.com tche@crowell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS M. MOLIN, ANDREAS U. KUEHNLE, MARTON GABOR GYORI, HUBA NEMETH, and CATHY L. BOON Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. ZADO, 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 1–10, 12, 14, 16 and 17. Appeal Br. 9. Claims 11, 13, and 15 have been canceled. Claims App. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to the Specification, the “present invention relates to systems and methods for generating an image of the surroundings of an articulated vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: determining, by a processor, an angle between a first vehicle of an articulated vehicle and a second vehicle of the articulated vehicle as the first and second vehicles rotate laterally relative to each other around a point at which the first and second vehicles are connected to each other, based on a relative position between a first camera arranged on the first vehicle and a second camera arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second cameras being located on a same side of the articulated vehicle; receiving, by the processor, a first image from the first camera arranged on the first vehicle and a second image from the second camera arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second images being obtained from the same side of the articulated vehicle; combining, by the processor, the first image and the second image based on the relative position between the first camera and the second camera to generate a combined image of surroundings of the articulated vehicle on the same side thereof, wherein the first image and the second image are combined by rotating the first image and the second image with respect to each other, based on the angle between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; detecting, by an active sensing system arranged on at least one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle, objects in the surroundings of the articulated vehicle; and superimposing information and representations of the detected objects on the combined image, wherein the combined image is a birds-eye view image of the surroundings of the articulated Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 3 vehicle and the superimposed information indicates a type of the detected objects and a likelihood of the articulated vehicle colliding with the detected objects. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Naruoka US 2002/0134151 A1 Sept. 26, 2002 Camilleri US 2006/0125919 A1 June 15, 2006 Hongo US 2008/0044061 A1 Feb. 21, 2008 Englander US 2008/0122597 A1 May 29, 2008 Endo US 2009/0174574 A1 July 9, 2009 Nishiuchi US 7,840,026 B2 Nov. 23, 2010 Sumi US 2012/0013642 A1 Jan. 19, 2012 Roberts US 2014/0025284 A1 Jan. 23, 2014 Fukata US 2014/0169630 A1 June 19, 2014 Hollinger US 9,144,714 B2 Sept. 29, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, and Camilleri. Final Act. 3–7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and Fukata. Final Act. 7. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and Endo. Final Act. 7–8. Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and Naruoka. Final Act. 8–9. Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 4 Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, Naruoka, and Nishiuchi. Final Act. 9–10. OPINION Specification The Specification generally relates to systems and methods for generating an image of the surroundings of an articulated vehicle, in which different parts of the vehicle are capable of moving with respect to each other. Spec. ¶ 2. An example of an articulated vehicle is a tractor-trailer in which the tractor and trailer may travel in different directions from each other, for example when the tractor-trailer turns a corner. Id. Figure 4A of the Specification, reproduced below, is illustrative. Figure 4A illustrates an articulated vehicle. Spec. Fig. 4. The articulated vehicle comprises first vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210, which are capable of moving with respect to each other. Id. ¶ 25. First vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210 each include fixed cameras (220, 230, 240, 250, 260, Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 5 270) on each side of each respective vehicle. Id. The Specification explains that it may be useful to determine the angle between the first and second vehicles. Figure 4B, reproduced below, illustrates the angle α between first vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210. Id. Fig. 4B. Figure 4B illustrates an articulated vehicle comprising first vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210, in which the alignment of first vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210 differ by angle α. Spec. Fig 4, ¶ 26. The Specification explains that one method of determining angle α involves using cameras 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, and/or 270 to detect common features in images recorded by the cameras. Spec. ¶ 27. For example, camera 240, shown in Figure 4A, may protrude from the first vehicle 200 and have a downward-looking fisheye lens. Id. In such instance, the field of view of camera 240 would include everything below the height of camera 240 and extend out to the horizon, including parts of second vehicle 210, such as the left-front trailer edge, the wheels, and/or markings on the side. Id. According to the Specification, these features can be used to determine angle α between first vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210. Id. ¶¶ 27–28. Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 6 Discussion Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown that the asserted combination of prior art teaches or suggests the following recitation of independent claim 1, and similar recitations of independent claims 16 and 17 (“determining an angle” limitation): determining, by a processor, an angle between a first vehicle of an articulated vehicle and a second vehicle of the articulated vehicle as the first and second vehicles rotate laterally relative to each other around a point at which the first and second vehicles are connected to each other, based on a relative position between a first camera arranged on the first vehicle and a second camera arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second cameras being located on a same side of the articulated vehicle. Appeal Br. 5–7. As a result, according to Appellant, the Examiner erred in finding independent claims 1, 16, and 17 unpatentable. Id. Appellant argues further that the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2–10, 12, and 14 are improper due to their dependence on claim 1. Id. at 9. For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Examiner has not shown the prior art teaches the “determining an angle” limitation. Moreover, the Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims do not cure this deficiency. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of all claims in this appeal—i.e., claims 1–10, 12, 14, 16, and 17. Because we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of all appealed claims on this basis, we need not and do not reach other grounds raised by Appellant in this appeal. For the “determining an angle” limitation, the Examiner relies on Hongo. Final Act. 3. Hongo relates to devices and methods for providing connected vehicles (such as tractor-trailers) with surrounding visual field support. Hongo ¶ 1. Figure 6 of Hongo, reproduced below, is illustrative. Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 7 Figure 6 shows a tractor-trailer (i.e., first and second vehicle) viewed from above, and more specifically, illustrates a connecting angle formed by the tractor and trailer. Hongo Fig. 6, ¶¶ 27, 75. Hongo explains that when a connected vehicle, such as a tractor- trailer, turns, the tractor and trailer bend at a connecting angle at the time of the vehicle body turning. Id. ¶ 5. Hongo states that there are “[a] large number of [proposed] methods of detecting the trailer connecting angle.” Id. ¶ 9. However, Hongo does not describe any such proposed methods. Id. The only description Hongo provides regarding how to detect a connecting angle is the statement that “a connecting angle detector” may be included. Id. ¶ 15. Although such statement gives no detail about how an “angle detector” detects a connecting angle, the Examiner finds, nonetheless, that it would have been obvious to detect a connecting angle by placing two cameras on the same side of an articulated vehicle, one on the front vehicle and one on the rear vehicle, and using the relative placement of the cameras to determine the connecting angle. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 8 None of the evidence the Examiner cites reasonably shows that it would have been obvious to rearrange the cameras in Hongo to conform to the claims, and then use the relative placement of the rearranged cameras in order to determine a connecting angle. Final Act. 3 (citing Hongo Figs. 6, 7, ¶¶ 15, 27, 28, 72–80). As pointed out by Appellant, the arrangement of the cameras in Hongo is completely different from the arrangement of cameras required by the claims. Appeal Br. 6. The claims require “a first camera arranged on the first vehicle and a second camera arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second cameras being located on a same side of the articulated vehicle.” Appeal Br. App’x A, A-1 (Claim 1). Hongo does not place two cameras on the same side of the tractor-trailer (i.e., connected vehicle), much less place one same-side vehicle camera on the first vehicle and one on the second vehicle. Appeal Br. 6. Rather, Hongo discloses placing one camera on each side of the trailer, wherein each camera is a fisheye lens with 180 degree coverage (i.e., covers the entire side of the vehicle). Hongo Figs. 6, 7. The only rationale the Examiner provides for rearranging the cameras in Hongo is that it would have been obvious as a matter of design preference/choice in selecting and viewing the particular side of the articulated vehicle chosen just as long as the end result of re-positioning the corresponding cameras does not alter/change the anticipated end result. In this case, the end result remains substantially the same. Moreover, solely repositioning/relocating an apparatus/device without altering/changing the end result doesn’t make it patentable. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 9 Even if we were to accept this rationale for adding additional cameras to Hongo, and for rearranging the cameras to conform to the manner claimed, this analysis fails to explain why it would have been obvious to then use the positioning of the cameras in order to detect the connecting angle between the tractor and the trailer. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not shown that the “determining an angle” limitation is taught or suggested by Hongo. In addition to the findings based on Hongo, the Examiner notes that Roberts provides additional support for the rejection. Appeal Br. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Roberts teaches systems and methods for determining relative position information obtained by using cameras placed on the same side of a vehicle. Id. (citing Roberts Fig. 1B, ¶¶ 1, 46). Roberts does not support the Examiner’s rejection. Roberts does not teach or suggest placing two different cameras on two different vehicles, nor teach determining an angle between two vehicles. As argued by Appellant, Roberts teaches using SONAR or RADAR on one vehicle, to ascertain the relative position of the one vehicle with respect to another vehicle. Appeal Br. 7; Roberts Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶¶ 40, 44. The SONAR/RADAR sensors are placed on the same side of the vehicle (i.e., the front of a car), but they are not, as in the claims, each on a separate vehicle that comprises an articulated vehicle. Roberts Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶¶ 40, 44. Moreover, the SONAR and RADAR sensors are not used to determine an angle. Each SONAR/RADAR sensor determines a distance from the primary vehicle to a second vehicle, and these distances are used to determine the location of the second vehicle. Id. However, there is no disclosure of using these measurements to determine any angles, much less an angle between a first vehicle and a second vehicle of an articulated Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 10 vehicle that rotate laterally around each other around a point at which the vehicles are connected to each other, as recited in the claims. As noted above, the vehicles in Roberts are not connected to each other, but rather are separate vehicles. Therefore, Roberts does support the Examiner’s rejection. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not shown that the combination of prior art teaches or suggests the “determining an angle” limitation. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims is reversed. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. More specifically, we reverse the rejections of: claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, and Camilleri; claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and Fukata; claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and Endo; claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and Naruoka; and claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, Naruoka, and Nishiuchi. Appeal 2020-000780 Application 15/893,206 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 103(a) Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 2 103(a) Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, Fukata 2 3, 4 103(a) Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, Endo 3, 4 5, 7 103(a) Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, Naruoka 5, 7 6, 8 103(a) Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, Nishiuchi 6, 8 Overall Outcome 1–10, 12, 14, 16, 17 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation