Ex Parte ConradDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 17, 201613678191 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/678,191 11115/2012 60770 7590 10/18/2016 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kevin P. Conrad 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. P019480-GMVE-LDA 1198 EXAMINER LANG, MICHAEL DEAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3667 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2016 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 KEVIN P. CONRAD Appeal2015-001045 Application 13/678,191 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CAL VE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-001045 Application 13/678,191 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for use in an active safety system installed on a host vehicle, comprising the steps of: for each of a plurality of consecutively-arranged target objects in a common path in front of the host vehicle, calculating a time to collision (TTC) between the target object and the host vehicle; evaluating one or more of the calculated TTCs to determine if the host vehicle is likely to collide with one or more of the target objects corresponding to the evaluated one or more calculated TTCs; and when the host vehicle is likely to collide with one or more of the plurality of target objects, triggering one or more collision avoidance measures. REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuge (US 2007/0276577 Al, pub. Nov. 29, 2007) and Rubin (US 2013/0282357 Al, pub. Oct. 24, 2013). 1 Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuge, Rubin, and Sakugawa (US 2012/0330541 Al, pub. Dec. 27, 2012). ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-24 as unpatentable over Kuge and Rubin Appellant argues claims 1-5 and 7-19 as a group and argues claims 21-24 separately. Appeal Br. 4--12. We select claim 1 as representative of the group (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)) and address claims 21-24 separately. 1 Although the caption for this rejection lists claims 1-20 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kuge and Rubin, the body of the rejection includes findings only for claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-24. See Final Act. 2-5. 2 Appeal2015-001045 Application 13/678,191 Claims 1-5 and 7-19 The Examiner found that Kuge discloses a method for using an active safety system, substantially as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 17, including calculating a time to collision (TTC) between a host vehicle and a plurality of target objects. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. The Examiner found that Kuge does not disclose a plurality of vehicles consecutively arranged in a common path in front of a host vehicle, but Rubin does. Final Act. 3. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify Kuge' s method of calculating a TTC in view of Rubin to calculate the TTC of the next consecutively-arranged vehicle in front of the host vehicle and thereby to use the radar or camera sensor to see beyond the normal vision of the driver as in Rubin to improve the safety of the vehicle. Id. Appellant argues that Kuge determines a headway and following distance for several objects in an angular range in front of a host vehicle but not necessarily in the same lane or same path. Appeal Br. 5-7. Appellant also argues that Kuge discloses calculating a TTC for a single object in the same lane as the host vehicle but does not calculate a TTC for a plurality of objects in the path of the host vehicle. Id. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Kuge discloses the use of laser radar device 10 to detect headway (following distances) between a host vehicle and a plurality of objects located in front of the host vehicle such as rear ends of preceding vehicles or obstacles. Kuge i-f 52. Detected headway distances and relative velocities are sent to controller 150. Id. The fact that Kuge detects and measures distances to and velocities of preceding vehicles in a path that is ± 6 degrees of the front of the host vehicle means that these preceding vehicles are in a "common path" with the host vehicle, as claimed. 3 Appeal2015-001045 Application 13/678,191 We do not interpret "a common path" to mean only a single lane in which a host vehicle travels, as Appellant argues. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. Appellant discloses that a transmitter obtains readings for a plurality of vehicles "within the same path of host vehicle 12." Spec. i-f 19. Claim 1 is not so limited to target objects in the same traffic lane as the host vehicle. We agree with the Examiner that Kuge detects vehicles and obstacles that precede a host vehicle in "a common path" as claimed. Ans. 2-3. A path that is ± 6 degrees would encompass preceding vehicles in the same lane as the host vehicle and other vehicles in a path that is common with the host vehicle. Therefore, Appellant's arguments regarding Kuge's detection of vehicles in a different lane (Appeal Br. 6) are not persuasive. We also agree with the Examiner that Kuge teaches a system that can calculate a time to collision (TTC) for any preceding vehicle or obstacle in the common path of the host vehicle because the laser-measured distance and velocity readings of those preceding vehicles and obstacles are sent to controller 150, which performs TTC calculations. Kuge i-fi-152, 72-78. At a minimum, such calculations would have been obvious in view of Kuge' s teachings to calculate a TTC for the vehicle immediately preceding the host vehicle, as a way to determine which preceding vehicle or obstacle presents the most immediate risk of collision to the host vehicle, i.e., has the smallest TTC. See id. i-fi-179-80; Ans. 3. Claim 1 requires calculation of a TTC for each preceding target object in a common path with a host vehicle. Claim 1 requires evaluation of "one or more of the calculated TTCs," which Kuge discloses in the Figure 9 embodiment as recognized by Appellant. Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. As modified by Rubin, Kuge can calculate TTCs to consecutively-arranged preceding vehicles, even in the same lane. 4 Appeal2015-001045 Application 13/678,191 Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained why it would have been obvious to combine a single feature from Rubin (a radar that sees under an adjacent vehicle to detect the next adjacent vehicle) with Kuge's system to arrive at the method of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9. This argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's reason for modifying Kuge with Rubin's teachings to use a laser to see under an adjacent vehicle to detect the next adjacent or consecutive vehicle beyond what a driver can see thereby to improve the safety of the vehicle. Rubin i-f 164. The Examiner's reasoning is supported by a rational underpinning of improving safety, particularly in view of Rubin's teaching that such method "is better than the vision of the driver." Id. As modified, Kuge's system can detect and calculate TTCs to consecutively-arranged vehicles in a common path with a host vehicle. The teachings of Rubin extend the range and capabilities of Kuge' s laser device to track and evaluate preceding vehicles beyond the vision of a driver. Appellant's remaining arguments amount to individual attacks on the references where the Examiner relies on their combined teachings to render obvious claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-19. Claims 21 and 22 Claims 21 and 22 depend respectively from claims 1 and 10 and recite a first target vehicle located in front of the host vehicle and a second target vehicle located in front of the first target vehicle in a common path in front of the host vehicle where the calculating step calculates a TTC between the second target vehicle and a host vehicle by emitting and receiving signals underneath the first target vehicle. The Examiner relied on Kuge in view of Rubin's teaching to use a laser underneath a preceding vehicle. Final Act. 5. 5 Appeal2015-001045 Application 13/678,191 Appellant argues that Rubin and Kuge do not teach or suggest this claimed arrangement of vehicles recited in claims 21 and 22. Appeal Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1. Kuge teaches that distances and velocities of multiple vehicles traveling in a common path ahead of a host vehicle can be measured. Kuge also teaches or suggests that TTCs can be calculated for each of these preceding vehicles so that the vehicle with the minimum TTC can be evaluated and monitored. See Kuge i-fi-152, 72-84. As modified by Rubin's teaching, Kuge can detect and calculate a TTC for the immediately preceding vehicle and a vehicle( s) preceding that vehicle by emitting laser beams under a preceding vehicle to the next adjacent vehicle. Rubin i-f 164. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22. Claims 23 and 24 Claims 23 and 24 depend from claims 1 and 102 respectively and recite a first target vehicle in front of the host vehicle and a second target vehicle in front of the first target vehicle in a common path in front of the host vehicle as in claims 21 and 22 "wherein the triggering step comprises triggering one or more collision avoidance measures in response to the second target vehicle." The Examiner found that Kuge teaches this method step except for the consecutively-arranged target vehicles, which Rubin teaches as discussed above. Final Act. 2-3. Appellant argues that Kuge and Rubin do not teach triggering or collision avoidance measures in response to a second target vehicle in front of the first target vehicle. Appeal Br. 12. 2 Appellant notes that claim 23 and 24 both depend from claim 1, but claim 24 is supposed to depend from claim 10. Appeal Br. 11. 6 Appeal2015-001045 Application 13/678,191 Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's findings and rationale for combining teachings of Kuge and Rubin to render obvious this subject matter for the reasons discussed above. As modified by teachings of Rubin (i-f 164), Kuge can detect, calculate TTCs, and trigger one or more collision avoidance measures in response to a second target vehicle. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 24. Claims 6 and 20 as unpatentable over Kuge, Rubin, and Sakugawa Appellant does not present separate arguments for the rejection of claims 6 and 20. See Appeal Br. 10 (arguing that dependent claims 2-9 are patentable due to their dependency from claim 1, and dependent claims 18- 20 are patentable due to their dependency from claim 17). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 20 summarily. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation