11478866 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2014)

Ex Parte Ames

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 6, 2014

11478866 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2014)

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. 11/478,866 06/30/2006 Michael B. Ames GP-308305-OST-ALS 6618 74829 7590 01/06/2014 Julia Church Dierker Dierker & Associates, P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Road Suite 109 Troy, MI 48084-2813 EXAMINER KING, RODNEY P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/06/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL B. AMES ____________ Appeal 2012-002395 Application 11/478,866 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael B. Ames (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-002395 Application 11/478,866 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for providing routing assistance to a vehicle in an emergency situation, comprising: determining, via a service provider, a location of an incident; determining an area surrounding the incident using at least the location of the incident; locating one or more vehicles that are then-currently located within the determined area surrounding the incident; establishing communication between a telematics unit in the one or more vehicles and the service provider; identifying, at the service provider, i) a destination location, and ii) an evacuation route toward the destination location that substantially avoids the incident; and transmitting the evacuation route to the telematics unit in the one or more vehicles. App. Br., Clms. App’x. REJECTIONS Appellant requests our review of the following rejections. App. Br. 9. Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jijina (US 2003/0060977 A1, pub. Mar. 27, 2003) and Kubota (US 2001/0037271 A1, pub. Nov. 1, 2001). Claims 5-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jijina, Kubota, and Shaffer (US 2006/0281471 A1, pub. Dec. 14, 2006). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jijina, Kubota, and Scaer (US 2004/0243299 A1, pub. Dec. 2, 2004). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jijina, Kubota, and Rychlak (US 6,889,137 B1, iss. May 3, 2005). Appeal 2012-002395 Application 11/478,866 3 Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jijina, Kubota, Oesterling (US 2004/0142659 A1, pub. Jul. 22, 2004), and Barton (US 6,446,002 B1, iss. Sep. 3, 2002). Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jijina, Kubota, and Carl (US 2005/0026626 A1, pub. Feb. 3, 2005). ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 as Unpatentable Over Jijina and Kubota Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 Appellant argues for the patentability of independent claims 1 and 14 together as a group. See App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 5-7. Also, Appellant does not argue for the patentability of dependent claims 2-4, 8, 9, 12, 13, or 16-18 separately from their respective independent claims 1 and 14. See id. We select claim 1 to decide the present appeal, with claims 2-4, 8, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appellant asserts “rerouting a vehicle around a traffic incident so that the vehicle can continue toward its own predetermined destination (as disclosed in Jijina) is not the same as routing the vehicle toward a destination determined by the service provider so as to evacuate the area proximate the incident.” App. Br. 10-11. In response, the Examiner acknowledges that deficiency of Jijina, but cites Kubota as curing the deficiency. See Ans. 6 and 18. Thus, although Appellant’s comparison of the Jijina disclosure with the claimed invention is accurate, it does not provide a sufficient rationale for reversing the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant also asserts the Examiner erred in concluding Jijina discloses “determining, via a service provider, a location of an incident” as Appeal 2012-002395 Application 11/478,866 4 recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant particularly asserts the incident location in Jijina is “determined” by the vehicle or the operator of the vehicle and then transmitted to the service provider, and is therefore not “determined” by the service provider. See id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive, because claim 1 does not require the determination to be made by the service provider independently of the vehicle or the operator of the vehicle. The claim merely requires the service provider to determine the incident location, without specifying or limiting how that determination is to be made. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the service provider of claim 1 may “determine” the incident location via receiving the incident location from the vehicle. Indeed, the Specification indicates the service provider may determine the incident location by either detecting the incident or by being notified of the incident. See Spec. para. [0062]. Such notification may come for example from news feed(s), Internet source(s), or government agencies. See Spec. paras. [0062] and [0040]. There is nothing in claim 1 to distinguish between the determination being made via notification from the vehicle versus notification from such other external sources. Appellant next asserts the Examiner erred in finding Kubota discloses “identifying, at the service provider, i) a destination location, and ii) an evacuation route toward the destination location that substantially avoids the incident” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. Appellant particularly asserts the destination location in Kubota is “identified” by the vehicle or the operator of the vehicle and then transmitted to the service provider, and is therefore not “identified” by the service provider. See id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive, because claim 1 does not require the Appeal 2012-002395 Application 11/478,866 5 identification to be made by the service provider independently of the vehicle or the operator of the vehicle. The claim merely requires the service provider to identify the destination location, without specifying or limiting how that identification is to be made. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the service provider of claim 1 may “identify” the destination location via receiving the destination location from the vehicle. Indeed, the Specification indicates the service provider may identify the destination location by receiving that information from third-party providers such as news feed(s), Internet source(s), or government agencies. See Spec. paras. [0033], [0048], [0063], and [0070]. Indeed, the Specification provides the identification can be provided by the vehicle user to the service provider. See id. at para. [0055]. There is nothing in claim 1 to distinguish between the identification being made via notification from the vehicle versus notification from other external sources. Appellant also asserts “Kubota does not disclose that the navigation route determined by the navigation program is an evacuation route that avoids an incident.” App. Br. 12. The Examiner however found both Jijina and Kubota disclose an evacuation route that avoids an incident. See Ans. 5- 6 (citing Jijina paras. [0038]-[0040]) and Ans. 19-20 (citing Kubota para. [0042]). We determine those findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of “evacuation route that avoids an incident.” For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 as unpatentable over Jijina and Kubota. Appeal 2012-002395 Application 11/478,866 6 Claim 20 Although claim 20 is argued in different sections of Appellant’s briefing than claim 1, the arguments presented are substantially similar to the arguments considered above. See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7. We find those arguments unpersuasive for the reasons already articulated. Rejections of Claims 5-7, 10, 11, 15, 19, and 21 as Unpatentable Over Jijina, Kubota, and Other Prior Art Appellant does not argue for the patentability of these dependent claims separately from their respective independent claims 1 and 14. See App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 7-8. We therefore sustain the rejections of these claims as unpatentable over Jijina, Kubota, and other prior art for the reasons provided above. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-21 as unpatentable over the prior art are each AFFIRMED. 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 mls