Ex Parte Cima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12619367 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
12/619,367 11/16/2009 Jarrid Cima FL US6(0018) 8481
134786 7590
Chetlin IP, P.C.
7600 N. 15th Street
Suite 150-13
Phoenix, AZ 85020
EXAMINER
CASS, JEAN PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
admin @ chetlinip .com
chetlinip_docketing @ cardinal-ip. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARRID CIMA
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jarrid Cima (Appellant)1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, dated
August 14, 2013 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-36.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Flanders Electric Motor Service, Inc. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4 and 18 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to methods and systems for
controlling autonomous vehicles. Spec. para. 1. Claims 1,15, 22-24, and
34 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below.
1. A method for controlling an autonomous vehicle,
comprising:
receiving data relating to a plurality of proposed vehicle
locations;
generating a simulated vehicle path based on the received
data, the simulated vehicle path comprising a simulated path
segment between a first proposed vehicle location and a second
proposed vehicle location;
determining a simulated vehicle orientation for the
autonomous vehicle for at least one point on the simulated
vehicle path;
displaying a visual representation of at least the simulated
vehicle orientation in a user-discemable form;
receiving a user verification of the simulated vehicle
orientation for at least one point on the simulated vehicle path
resulting in a user-verified simulated vehicle orientation and a
user-verified simulated path; and
producing approved vehicle control commands from the
user-verified simulated vehicle path and the user-verified
simulated vehicle orientation, the approved vehicle control
commands controlling the autonomous vehicle to follow the
user-verified simulated vehicle path and achieve the user-
verified simulated vehicle orientation.
2
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
REJECTIONS
The Final Action includes the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 2, 15-17, 22-24, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kyrtsos (EP 0 996 047 Bl, published May 2,
2003).3,4
2. Claims 1, 15, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Soest (US 6,377,889 Bl, issued April 23, 2002).
3. Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Diekhans (US 7,502,678 B2, issued March 10,
2009) and Kyrtsos.
4. Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kyrtsos,
Diekhans, and Bums (US 2001/0021888 Al, published September
13,2001).
3 The Examiner identifies the prior art as “E.P. Patent No.: EP0996047 to
Kyritsos [sic] et al. . . . which published on May 2, 1990.” Final Act. 7. The
date of publication identified by the Examiner does not match the date of
publication of the indicated EP Patent. Further, the Examiner appears to
have attached a copy of the published EP application (i.e., EP 0 996 047 Al,
published April 25, 2000) to the Office Action. Despite providing a copy of
the published application, the Examiner’s citations to the prior art reference,
in most instances, correspond to the paragraph numbering of the issued
patent (i.e., EP 0 996 047 Bl, published May 2, 2003). Accordingly, we
understand the Examiner’s references to Kyrtsos and/or the ’047 patent in
the rejections on appeal to refer to the published EP patent.
4 Although the statement of the first ground of rejection omits claim 16, the
detailed explanation of the ground includes analysis of claim 16. Compare
Final Act. 7 with id. at 21.
3
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
5. Claims 1, 15, 22-24, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kyrtsos and Bums.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Claims 1, 2, 15-17, 22-24, 34, and 35 as anticipated by
Kyrtsos
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for controlling an
autonomous vehicle that includes “receiving a user verification of the
simulated vehicle orientation for at least one point on the simulated vehicle
path resulting in a user-verified simulated vehicle orientation and a user-
verified simulated path.” Appeal Br. 100 (Claims App.). The Examiner
finds that Kyrtsos discloses this recited receiving step. Final Act. 9 (citing
Kyrtsos, paras. 151-164); id. at 12 (citing Kyrtsos, paras. 144-153).
Appellant argues that the tracking control stmcture discussed in paragraphs
144-153 discloses only simulations used to select “tuning values” and not a
“simulated vehicle orientation” as called for in claim 1. Appeal Br. 25.
Appellant further argues “mere use of the word ‘preview’ [in paragraphs
151-164 of Kyrtsos] cannot transform Kyrtsos’ purely computational model
into disclosing the claimed ‘user verification of the simulated vehicle
orientation for at least one point on the simulated vehicle path resulting in a
user-verified simulated vehicle orientation and a user-verified simulated
path.’” Id. at 26. Appellant further argues “all that Kyrtsos discloses is
writing the route data to permanent storage ‘once the routes for a site are
defined’” and “Kyrtsos does not disclose the claimed ‘user-verification’
steps in which the user affirmatively determines that the simulated vehicle
4
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
orientation and simulated vehicle path are acceptable.” Reply Br. 6 (citing
Kyrtsos, para. 131).
Kyrtsos discloses a navigation system 1022 that receives a position
estimate from a vehicle positioning system 1000 and uses the estimate to
guide an autonomous vehicle 102 between points along pre-established or
dynamically-generated paths. Kyrtsos, para. 48. Navigation system 1022
checks the actual position of vehicle 102 against the desired position to
correct vehicle control in accord with the desired position. Id. at para. 53.
Kyrtsos discloses that “[i]n kinematic steering schemes . . . [tjuning values,
such as look-ahead distance and selection of curvature on the path, are
selected through empirical trials and simulations in order to get good
performance.” Id. at para. 147. Unlike kinematic steering schemes, Kyrtsos
discloses, however, that “[t]he look-ahead distance in the present invention,
is the distance by which errors in position, heading and curvature are
planned to be reduced to zero” and that this distance “varies with the speed
of the . . . vehicle.” Id. at para. 148. Kyrtsos teaches that “real vehicles
depart from kinematic idealization” and that “[a]n embodiment of the
present invention uses a model which includes considerations of cornering
stiffness, mass and slip angle” and “is formulated as a linear quadratic
optimal tracking problem.” Id. at paras. 150-51. “The optimal path and
controls are computed from the desired path 3312 and the currently sensed
vehicle position using the current errors as initial conditions to the optimal
control problem.” Id. at para. 152. “This preview optimal steering planning
has the advantage of guaranteeing stability and optimality with respect to the
5
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
given performance index.” Id. at para. 153. Kyrtsos further discloses a
quintic polynomial method used to construct a smooth path back to the
desired or correct path. Id. at paras. 158-59. This quintic method “replans a
simple, continuous path that converges to a desired path in some look-ahead
distance 3310 and computes a steering angle corresponding to the part of the
replanned path 2816 to be followed for the next time interval. Id. at para.
159. “The look-ahead distance, L 3310, is a parameter that can be used to
adjust how rapidly the vehicle steers to converge to the desired path” and
“better performance is obtained if L 3310 is chosen proportional to the
vehicle speed. . . .” Id. at para. 164.
We agree with Appellant that Kyrtsos does not disclose the step of
receiving a user verification as called for in claim 1. In particular, Kyrtsos
does not disclose that a user verifies a simulated vehicle orientation that
results in a user-verified simulated vehicle orientation and a user-verified
simulated vehicle path prior to producing commands to control the
autonomous vehicle to follow the user-verified path and orientation. Rather,
Kyrtsos, as described above, commands an autonomous vehicle to follow a
predetermined path and then, when the system detects errors between the
vehicle’s actual position and the desired path, further commands the
autonomous vehicle to follow a replanned path. In the portions of Kyrtsos
relied on by the Examiner, Kyrtsos discloses an automated system to
compute the replanned path, without user verification of the path or vehicle
orientation, prior to producing commands to control the vehicle to follow the
replanned path. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of
6
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kyrtsos.
Independent claims 15, 22, 23, and 34 contain a similar user-
verification of the simulated vehicle orientation limitation to claim 1.
Appeal Br. 102-105, 108-109 (Claims App.). For the reasons set forth
above in our analysis, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 15, 22, 23, and 34 and their dependent claims 16, 17,
and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kyrtsos.
Independent claim 24 recites “verifying the simulated vehicle
orientation for at least one point on the simulated vehicle path.” Appeal
Br. 106 (Claims App.). As noted by Appellant, the Examiner relied on the
same disclosures in Kyrtsos in support of the rejection of claim 24 as relied
upon in support of the rejection of claim 1. Id. at 35; Final Act. 36 (citing
Kyrtsos, paras. 144-153). For the reasons set forth above in our analysis of
claim 1, we likewise do not find that the cited paragraphs of Kyrtsos do not
disclose that verification of a simulated vehicle orientation occurs in
Kyrtsos’s automated tracking system. Thus, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kyrtsos.
Rejection II: Claims 1, 15, 22-24 as anticipated by Soest
Similar to Kyrtsos, Soest discloses a system for “getting the vehicle
back to the predetermined guidance course after it has already been
displaced.” Appeal Br. 41; see also Soest, col. 3,11. 19-23. The invention
as recited in claims 1,15, and 22-24 is directed to avoidance of course
7
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
correction through the use of user-verification of simulated vehicle
orientation prior to producing control commands to control the autonomous
vehicle to follow a predefined path and vehicle orientation. With regard to
claim 1, the Examiner finds that Soest discloses user verification of a
simulated vehicle orientation. Final Act. 47 (citing Soest, col. 4,11. 61-65);
Ans. 33-34 (citing Soest, col. 5,11. 40-59, col. 7,11. 35-60, col. 8,11. 36^46,
and col. 9,11. 1-37). Appellant argues that Soest does not disclose
“achieving the user-verified simulated vehicle orientation.” Appeal Br. 41.
In this regard, Appellant notes that Soest teaches a piloted embodiment,
shown in Figure 2a, in which the pilot provides an input to the appropriate
vehicle controls to manually place the vehicle on a corrective heading. Id.
(citing Soest, col. 8,11. 55-56 and col. 9,11. 22-25). Appellant further notes
that Soest also discloses an unmanned vehicle, shown in Figure 2b, in which
the display is removed from the system. Id. at 42 (citing Soest, col. 9,11. 38-
48).
Indeed, Soest discloses that in the unmanned vehicle embodiment, the
display means (13) and pilot (14) of Figure 2a are replaced with an
automated control system (17) of Figure 2b. Soest, col. 9,11. 38-41. Soest
states that in the unmanned vehicle embodiment “the corrective headings
outputted from the processing means (12) do not need to be displayed
visually and are instead received in an appropriate format directly by the
automated control system (17), which interprets the corrective heading data
and computes and outputs the appropriate control signals to the vehicle
controls (15).” Id. at col. 9,11. 43^48 (emphasis omitted). As such, the
8
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
corrective heading commands are sent directly to the automated control
system without any verification of the planned corrective path by a user.
Thus, Soest’s unmanned vehicle embodiment does not provide adequate
support for the Examiner’s finding that Soest discloses “receiving a user
verification of the simulated vehicle orientation” as called for in claim 1.
Further, as noted by Appellant, Soest’s piloted embodiment also does
not meet the language of claim 1. In this embodiment, Soest discloses:
Having been visually apprised of the corrective heading, the pilot
(14) provides an input to the appropriate vehicle controls (15),
e.g. steering wheel, joystick, and so forth. This result[s] in an
actual change in the heading VH and location (16) of the vehicle
(5), which is detected by the navigation receiver (11) to complete
a corrective feedback loop for the system.
Soest, col. 9,11. 22-28 (emphasis omitted). The corrective heading
commands are displayed to the pilot; however, the pilot does not verify a
simulated vehicle orientation resulting in a user-verified simulated vehicle
orientation and user-verified simulated path, such that commands are
produced to control an autonomous vehicle to follow a user-verified path
and orientation. Rather, the pilot simply controls the vehicle manually to
follow the corrective heading. Thus, Soest’s piloted vehicle embodiment
also does not provide adequate support for the Examiner’s finding that Soest
discloses all of the elements called for in claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Soest. Claims 15 and 22-24 contain
similar limitations to those discussed above for claim 1. Thus, we likewise
9
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Soest.
Rejection III— Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-35 as unpatentable over Diekhans
and Kyrtsos
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner found that “Diekhans discloses
‘receiving a user verification of the simulated vehicle orientation for at least
one point on the simulated vehicle path.’” Final Act. 57 (citing Diekhans,
col. 14,11. 13-22) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner made similar findings
and relied on the same passage of Diekhans for the rejection of the
remaining independent claims 15, 22-24, and 34. Final Act. 67, 75, 77, 78,
and 91. Appellant contests this finding. Appellant asserts that Diekhans’s
disclosure of a manual override is not the claimed “user-verification” of a
simulated vehicle orientation and that the Examiner failed to address how
the manual override of Diekhans results in “a user-verified simulated vehicle
orientation and a user-verified simulated path” as called for in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 54-55.
We agree with Appellant that the portion of Diekhans cited by the
Examiner does not disclose the receiving step of claim 1. Diekhans
discloses a fully automatic control of an autonomous vehicle including
updating of a sequence of headland working steps depending on a specific
course of a current headland track. Diekhans, col. 14,11. 13-17. Diekhans
discloses that “[f]or safety reasons, the system is also designed, of course,
such that the operator can manually override the fully automatic control at
10
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
any time.” Id. at col. 14,11. 19-21. Such a manual override is not user-
verification of a simulated vehicle orientation. Rather, a manual override is
a negation of the predetermined automated headland track in favor of user
control of the autonomous vehicle. As such, Diekhans’s disclosure of a
manual override does not result in “a user-verified simulated vehicle
orientation and a user-verified simulated path” as called for in claim 1. For
these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims 2, 3, and 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Diekhans and Kyrtsos. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain this
ground of rejection of independent claims 15, 22-24, and 34, and their
dependent claims 16, 17, 19-21, 25-33, and 35.
Rejection IV— Claim 36 as unpatentable over Kyrtsos, Diekhans, and Burns
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 relies on the same deficient
finding as to the disclosure in Diekhans of “receiving a user verification of
the simulated vehicle orientation for at least one point on the simulated
vehicle path” that formed the basis of Rejection III of claim 34, from which
claim 36 depends. Final Act. 91. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
above in our analysis of Rejection III, we likewise do not sustain Rejection
IV of claim 36.
Rejection V— Claims 1, 15, 22-24, and 34 as unpatentable over Kyrtsos and
Burns
With regard to independent claim 1, the Examiner found that “Bums
discloses a user[-]verified simulated vehicle orientation and a user-verified
11
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
simulated path. . . Final Act. 102 (citing Bums, paras. 33-37, Figs. 2-5).
The Examiner did not provide any findings specific to claims 15, 22-24, and
34. Appellant argues:
The cited portions of Bums are directed to alternative paths for
mt reduction using a computer. Bums does not disclose a display
or user verification of any kind, let alone user verification of a
simulated orientation or simulated path or a display of the user-
verification. Indeed, Bums makes clear that the alternative paths
are actual paths — not simulated — and that, because they are
generated randomly and then imposed on the vehicle by the
guidance system, there is no place for user-verification or any
display of user verification.
Appeal Br. 94 (citing Bums, para. 30).
Appellant is correct in noting that Bums discloses, in one
embodiment, generating alternative paths randomly. Bums, para. 30. We
find inadequate disclosure of a user-verification of a simulated vehicle
orientation that leads to commands for the autonomous vehicle to follow the
user-verified simulated orientation and path, as called for in claim 1.
Bums describes another embodiment in which “alternative paths are
selected not randomly but pursuant to a particular strategy deemed most
appropriate for the type of vehicle and road involved.” Bums, para. 31
(describing use of “parallel paths” on corridors of uniform width and
“crisscrossing paths” in wider spaces of nonuniform corridors). Again, in
this embodiment, Bums does not disclose user verification of the alternative
paths prior to producing commands to control the autonomous vehicle to
follow a particular path.
12
Appeal 2015-004120
Application 12/619,367
Bums also discloses using a two-way communications apparatus 70 to
communicate the location of the vehicle 32 and the vehicle’s identifying
information to a base station, and that “[u]pon processing of this
information, the computer 74 transmits the appropriate set of instmctions to
the on-board processor 78 to guide the vehicle to the intended destination
according to the invention using appropriate hardware and guidance
software incorporated within the vehicle.” Bums, para. 35 (emphasis
omitted). We do not understand this paragraph to describe the verification
by a user of the alternative path selected by the computer prior to
commanding the on-board processor to guide the vehicle along the
alternative path.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kyrtsos and Bums. For the same
reasons, we also do not sustain this ground of rejection of independent
claims 15, 22-24, and 34.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-36 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
13