Ex Parte Clarke et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2018

14560420 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/560,420 12/04/2014 Anna Clarke
22852 7590 09/19/2018
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
12312.0013 9364
EXAMINER
MELTON, TODD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNA CLARKE and EY AL BAGON
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Anna Clarke and Eyal Bagon (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A driver assist navigation system for a user vehicle, the
system comprising:
at least one image capture device configured to acquire a
plurality of images of an area in a vicinity of the user vehicle;
a data interface; and
at least one processing device configured to:
receive the plurality of images via the data
interface; determine from the plurality of images a first
lane constraint on a first side of the user vehicle;
determine from the plurality of images a second
lane constraint on a second side of the user vehicle
opposite to the first side of the user vehicle, wherein the
first and second lane constraints define a lane within
which the user vehicle travels;
acquire, based on the plurality of images, a target
vehicle;
initiate a pass operation to enable the user vehicle
to pass the target vehicle while maintaining travel within
the first and second lane constraints if the target vehicle
is determined to be in a lane different from the lane in
which the user vehicle is traveling;
monitor a position of the target vehicle relative to
the first or second lane constraint based on the plurality
of images; and
activate an abort operation to cause the user
vehicle to abort the pass before completion of the pass, if
the target vehicle is determined to be entering the lane in
which the user vehicle is traveling and, based on the
monitored position of the target vehicle, there is
insufficient space between the first and second lane
constraints for the user vehicle to bypass the target
vehicle.
2
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Iwasaki (US 8,571,786 B2,
iss. Oct. 29, 2013).
II. Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iwasaki and Yasui
(US 6,091,833, iss. July 18, 2000).
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 7 is directed to a method and recites steps of
acquiring a target vehicle, "initiating a pass operation to enable the user
vehicle to pass the target vehicle" if the target vehicle is determined to be in
a lane different from the lane in which the user vehicle is traveling,
monitoring a position of the target vehicle relative to the lane constraints of
the lane in which the user vehicle is traveling, and activating an abort
operation to abort the pass operation prior to completion "if the target
vehicle is determined to be entering the lane in which the user vehicle is
traveling and, based on the monitored position of the target vehicle, there is
insufficient space between the first and second lane constraints for the user
vehicle to bypass the target vehicle." Appeal Br. 22-23 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to "[a] driver assist navigation
system for a user vehicle" and "[a] user vehicle," respectively, and recite "at
least one processing device configured to" perform the aforementioned
functions. Id. at 18-21.
3
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
Appellants present arguments for independent claim 1, and submit
that independent claims 9 and 17 "are allowable for at least the reasons
given with respect to claim 1." Appeal Br. 10-16. Appellants do not
present any separate arguments for dependent claims 2---6, 10-14, and 18-20
aside from their dependency from independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7. Id. at
16. We decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection on the basis of claim
1, and claims 2-6, 9-14, and 17-20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the
appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued
together).
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings regarding Iwasaki' s
disclosure of the image capture device, data interface, or processing device
configured to receive a plurality of images and determine therefrom first and
second lane constraints, and to acquire, based on the plurality of images, a
target vehicle. See Final Act. 3--4; Appeal Br. 10-16. Rather, Appellants
contend that Iwasaki does not disclose initiating a pass operation as claimed
or activating an abort operation as claimed. Appeal Br. 12-15.
More particularly, Appellants submit that Iwasaki's adaptive cruise
control (ACC) system, which was cited by the Examiner in addressing the
limitation of initiating a pass operation, controls the host vehicle according
to either a set speed or a set inter-vehicle distance, and supports driving
operation by a driver. Id. at 12. Appellants argue that "neither holding a set
vehicle speed, nor controlling acceleration and braking in consideration of
an inter-vehicle distance, teaches 'initiation' of a pass operation." Id.
According to Appellants, the possibility that Iwasaki's host vehicle may
incidentally pass another vehicle while traveling at a set speed "does not
4
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
constitute or suggest the 'initiation' of the pass operation, as claimed." Id. at
12-13.
The Examiner responds that Iwasaki's ACC system "must have the
capability of passing slower vehicles, at least for the reason that it discloses
that the host vehicle travels at a set vehicle speed and therefore must be able
to pass slower vehicles that do not obstruct the host vehicle." Ans. 3.
Appellants counter that "mere 'capability of passing slower vehicles' cannot
demonstrate that Iwasaki inherently or necessarily performs a step of
'initiat[ing] a pass operation."' Reply Br. 3--4 (italics omitted).
Appellants' arguments overlook that Iwasaki's ACC system operates
subject to control of vehicle speed, acceleration, steering angle, etc., of the
host vehicle by control unit 32 in accordance with the risk of the target
vehicle to the host vehicle computed by risk computing unit 20. See
Iwasaki, col. 6, 11. 52-57; Final Act. 4 (citing Iwasaki, col. 6, 11. 52-57 in
addressing the "initiate a pass operation" limitation). As illustrated, for
example, in Iwasaki's Figure 2, and as disclosed by Iwasaki (col. 6, 1. 65-
col. 7, 1. 7), risk computing unit 20 establishes safety area As in which host
vehicle 100 can travel safely, excluding risk area AR presented by other
vehicles (i.e., the target vehicle). The risk area AR moves and changes with
changes in the situation around host vehicle 100, such as movements and
speed changes of other vehicles. See Iwasaki, col. 7, 11. 3-13. Thus,
Iwasaki's risk computing unit and control unit 32 together are configured to
establish a safety area As that extends in the host vehicle's lane past the
target vehicle when the target vehicle is determined to be in a lane different
from the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling, which would enable the
host vehicle to pass the target vehicle while traveling within the lane
5
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
constraints. Consequently, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding
that Iwasaki's processing device (risk computing unit 20 and control unit 32)
is configured to initiate a pass operation to enable the user vehicle (host
vehicle 100) to pass the target vehicle while maintaining travel in the user
vehicle's lane if the target vehicle is determined to be in a lane different
from the lane in which the user vehicle is traveling, as recited in claim 1.
With respect to the limitation of activating an abort operation to abort
the pass operation, Appellants argue that Iwasaki does not satisfy this
limitation "because it never 'initiate[ s] a pass operation' to begin with."
Appeal Br. 13. This argument is not persuasive because, for the reasons
discussed above, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that
Iwasaki's processing device is configured to initiate a pass operation to
enable the user vehicle to pass the target vehicle, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants additionally argue that Iwasaki discloses "suppressing a
lane change or acceleration of the user vehicle if a risk of a future (i.e.,
predicted) action of a peripheral vehicle is high," and "[ s ]uppression of a
lane change or acceleration of the user vehicle based on a potential or
predicted movement of a risk object entering the lane does not constitute
determining that a target vehicle is entering the lane, as required by claim 1."
Id.
In response, the Examiner points out that Iwasaki discloses that other
vehicles define risk areas, which move as the situation around the host
vehicle changes. Ans. 3 ( citing Iwasaki, col. 6, 11. 66-67; col. 7, 11. 3--4; Fig.
2). Thus, the Examiner finds that Iwasaki does not teach suppression of host
vehicle acceleration "only as a result of predictions of other vehicles'
movements." Id. According to the Examiner, "Iwasaki teaches that
6
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
predicted movements are corrections of actual movements of other
vehicles," and, "therefore[,] the ACC system of Iwasaki must also be
responsive to actual movements of other vehicles, including other vehicles
entering the lane of the host vehicle or moving into a position in front of the
host vehicle." Id. at 3--4 ( citing Iwasaki, col. 8, 11. 49--52).
As discussed above, Iwasaki's risk computing unit 20 establishes
safety area As in which host vehicle 100 can travel safely, excluding risk
area AR presented by other vehicles (i.e., the target vehicle). Iwasaki, col. 6,
1. 65---col. 7, 1. 7. The risk area AR moves and changes with changes in the
situation around host vehicle 100, such as movements and speed changes of
other vehicles. See id., col. 7, 11. 3-13. Moreover, Iwasaki discloses that
"[t]he risk area AR is obtained from a normal risk which depends on the
current states of peripheral vehicles and the road environment and an
oncoming risk which is predicted on the basis of the current states ( speed or
direction) of the peripheral vehicles." Id., col. 7, 11. 14--18.
Iwasaki describes an example of an oncoming, or predicted, risk, with
reference to Figure 6. See Iwasaki, col. 8, 11. 40-60; Final Act. 5 (citing this
disclosure in addressing the abort limitation). More specifically, when the
target vehicle (vehicle 201) approaches another vehicle (vehicle 202),
Iwasaki' s indirect risk unit 21 estimates an increasing probability of the
target vehicle either decelerating in its current lane or changing lanes to an
adjacent lane. Iwasaki, col. 8, 11. 40--43. Direct risk computing unit 22 of
Iwasaki's risk computing unit 20 substitutes this computation result from
indirect risk unit 21 and predicts that the target vehicle will approach the left
side of host vehicle 100 (by decelerating) or cut in front of vehicle 100. Id.,
col. 8, 11. 44--49. Direct risk computing unit 22 then corrects risk area AR to
7
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
risk area A/ on the basis of this prediction. Id., col. 8, 11. 50-52. Although
risk area A/ is not labeled in Figure 6, it is apparent from Iwasaki's
description that corrected risk area AR' must include the two risk areas
shown in dotted lines in Figure 6, in addition to risk area AR depicted in
solid lines with cross hatching. Taking into account this predicted/oncoming
risk area, risk computing unit 20 suppresses a lane change to the left lane or
acceleration of host vehicle 100. Id., col. 8, 11. 52-58.
The particular lane change/acceleration suppression described by
Iwasaki in column 8, lines 52-58, is based on a determination of a prediction
that the target vehicle will enter the lane in which the host vehicle is
traveling. However, when safety area As is decreased by actual changes in
movements, such as speed changes or lane changes, of other vehicles around
the host vehicle, Iwasaki discloses that risk computing unit 20 and control
unit 32 must control the host vehicle, such as by decelerating the host
vehicle, so as to ensure the necessary safety area. Id., col. 7, 11. 4--13. Thus,
it is clear that whenever the risk area includes the area in front of the host
vehicle in the lane in which Iwasaki is traveling, whether that risk area is
generated based on the target vehicle entering the lane in which the host
vehicle is traveling from an adjacent lane (i.e., normal risk depending on the
current states of peripheral vehicles) or based on a predicted probability of
the target vehicle entering the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling,
Iwasaki's control unit 32 controls the speed and acceleration of the host
vehicle to suppress the ability of the host vehicle to enter the risk area. In
other words, in accordance with the control disclosed by Iwasaki, the
processing device (risk computing unit 20 and control unit 32) is configured
to control the host vehicle in a manner to prevent the host vehicle from
8
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
passing the target vehicle (including aborting an in-process pass operation
enabling the host vehicle to pass the target vehicle) if the target vehicle is
determined to be entering the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling, as
recited in claim 1.
Appellants also argue that Iwasaki does not "disclose determining
'space between the first and second lane constraints for the user vehicle to
bypass the target vehicle,' as claimed," and
is silent as to aborting a pass if both "the target vehicle is
determined to be entering the lane in which the user vehicle is
traveling and, based on the monitored position of the target
vehicle, there is insufficient space between the first and second
lane constraints for the user vehicle to bypass the target
vehicle," as claimed.
Appeal Br. 15.
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1,
which does not positively recite that the processing device "determin[ es]
'space between the first and second lane constraints for the user vehicle to
bypass the target vehicle,"' as Appellants' argument suggests. Thus, this
argument does not apprise us of error. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
( CCP A 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability). We also note that claim 1 does not specify that the
processing device is configured to activate an abort operation only if the
target vehicle is determined to be entering the lane in which the user vehicle
is traveling and there is insufficient space between the lane constraints to
bypass the target vehicle. Notably, claim 1 is silent as to what the
processing device is configured to do if the target vehicle is determined to be
entering the lane in which the user vehicle is traveling, but there is sufficient
space between the lane constraints to bypass the vehicle. In fact, neither
9
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
claim 1 nor the Specification defines what constitutes sufficient, or
insufficient, space to bypass the vehicle, and, in particular, whether, within
the scope of the invention, there would ever be sufficient space within the
lane constraints to bypass a vehicle determined to be entering the lane in
which the user vehicle is traveling.
Moreover, as perhaps best illustrated in Figure 2 of Iwasaki, the
processing device (risk computing unit 20 and control unit 32) are
configured to control host vehicle 100 so as to ensure the necessary safety
area As, which denotes the area in which host vehicle 100 can travel safely,
excluding risk area AR, which is defined by other vehicles, such as the target
vehicle, around host vehicle 100. See Iwasaki, col. 6, 1. 65---col. 7, 1. 7. As
such, Iwasaki' s control over host vehicle 100 of the speed and acceleration
of host vehicle 100, to suppress the ability of the host vehicle to enter the
risk area, takes into account the necessary safety area in which host vehicle
100 can travel safely. The risk area and the necessary safety area change
with the change in the normal risk-namely, the changing situation of the
target vehicle moving into the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling.
Thus, in accordance with the control disclosed by Iwasaki, the processing
device (risk computing unit 20 and control unit 32) is configured to control
the host vehicle in a manner to prevent the host vehicle from passing the
target vehicle (thereby reversing, or aborting, an in-process pass operation
enabling the host vehicle to pass the target vehicle) if the target vehicle is
determined to be entering the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling,
thereby expanding the risk area and decreasing the necessary safety area to
an extent that there is insufficient space in the lane for the host vehicle to
10
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
bypass the target vehicle. In other words, Iwasaki's processing device is
configured to
activate an abort operation to cause the user vehicle to abort the
pass operation if the target vehicle is determined to be entering
the vehicle in which the user vehicle is traveling and, based on
the monitored position of the target vehicle, there is insufficient
space between the first and second lane constraints for the user
vehicle to bypass the target vehicle,
as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 18-19 (Claims App.).
For the above reasons, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as claims 2-6, 9-14, and 17-20, which fall with claim 1, as
anticipated by Iwasaki.
Rejection II
In contesting the rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 21, and 22 as
unpatentable over Iwasaki and Yasui, Appellants argue only that Yasui does
not cure the deficiencies asserted by Appellants against the rejection of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. For the reasons discussed above, Appellants'
arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, and,
likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 21,
and 22. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 21, and
22 as unpatentable over Iwasaki and Yasui.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 is AFFIRMED.
11
Appeal2017-009323
Application 14/560,420
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12