Ex Parte BENMIMOUN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

14554437 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/554,437 11/26/2014
28395 7590 09/05/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ahmed BENMIMOUN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83479345 8202
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2018 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AHMED BENMIMOUN, JITENDRA SHAH,
And JIEZHI FAN
Appeal 2017-011626
Application 14/554,437
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ahmed Benmimoun et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8,
11-13, 16, and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011626
Application 14/554,437
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to a method and an apparatus for
automatically assessing the risk of collision between a vehicle and an object.
Spec. para. 2.
Claims 1, 13, and 1 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of operating an electronic controller to assess a
collision risk between a vehicle and an object, comprising:
determining, based on signals received from sensors
detecting kinematics of the vehicle and of the object, a) a last-
chance braking-avoidance position beyond which collision is
unavoidable by braking the vehicle and b) a last-chance steering-
avoidance position beyond which collision is unavoidable by
steering the vehicle;
determining a braking danger value (BDV) based on a
current distance to the last-chance braking-avoidance position
and a steering danger value (SDV) based on a current distance to
the last-chance steering-avoidance position, at least one of the
values expressing a probability of colliding with the object and
being linearly time-dependent over a finite time period before
reaching the respective last-chance braking-avoidance and last-
chance steering-avoidance positions; and
assessing the collision risk based on the BDV and the
SDV.
2
Appeal 2017-011626
Application 14/554,437
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11-13, 16, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Dae (KR 10-2008-
0064798, published Jan. 13, 2010). 2
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Dae discloses all of the limitations set forth
in claims 1, 13 and 17. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Dae, pp. 3--4). The Examiner
appears to equate a "collision dangerous level" of Dae to a probability of
collision, as claimed. See Final Act. 4; see also Dae, p. 4. The Examiner
explains that, in the second paragraph of page 4, Dae discloses a braking
danger value, i.e., a "size of the risk of collision" based on the relative speed
between a vehicle and an object. Ans. 2. The Examiner takes the position
that Dae determines a collision dangerous level based on vehicle
acceleration and vehicle speed wherein higher vehicle acceleration and
higher vehicle speed would increase the probability of a collision between
the vehicle and the object and wherein acceleration and speed are both
linearly time-dependent over a finite time period. Id. As such, the Examiner
concludes that Dae discloses determining a braking danger value and a
steering danger value based on a first brake avoidance distance and a second
distance, as well as a first steering avoidance distance and a second
avoidance distance. Id. at 3.
2 Reference herein to Dae is to an English-language machine translation of
Dae, which is of record in the Image File Wrapper of the underlying
application.
3
Appeal 2017-011626
Application 14/554,437
Appellants contend that there is no disclosure that the "collision
dangerous level" of Dae expresses a probability of colliding with the object,
or that it is linearly time-dependent over a finite time period before reaching
the last-chance avoidance positions. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants argue that the
rejection relies on an improper interpretation of Dae and extrapolates or
hypothesizes features that are not actually disclosed. Id. at 3.
A reference anticipates claimed subject matter only when every
element of the claimed invention is literally present, arranged as in the
claim. Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 (1984); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp. 713 F.2d 760, 771-72 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
( 1984 ). The Examiner has not established that Dae meets these criteria. The
Examiner does not provide evidence or sound technical reasoning that Dae' s
"collision dangerous level" expresses a probability of collision. The
Examiner also fails to adequately establish or explain how Dae can be
interpreted as disclosing a value (BDV or SDV) that expresses a probability
of colliding with the object and that is linearly time-dependent over a finite
time period before reaching a last-chance braking-avoidance position or a
last-chance steering-avoidance position, as claimed.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that claims 1, 13, and 17 are anticipated by Dae. The rejection
of independent claims 1, 13, and 17, and of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 16,
each depending from one of the independent claims, as being anticipated by
Dae, is not sustained.
4
Appeal 2017-011626
Application 14/554,437
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11-13, 16, and 17 is reversed.
REVERSED
5