Ex Parte Cuddihy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

14689144 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/689,144 04/17/2015
28395 7590 09/19/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark A. Cuddihy
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.
83512183 1706
EXAMINER
ANTONUCCI, ANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK A. CUDDIHY,
MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO, AGNES S. KIM,
and KWAKU 0. PRAKAH-ASANTE 1
Appeal2017-010452
Application 14/689,144
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC, which is the Applicant. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010452
Application 14/689,144
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a vehicle restraint system that allows an
operator of a vehicle to set characteristics of a passenger zone according to
multiple passenger profiles. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A restraint system for a vehicle comprising:
an occupant detection sensor;
an airbag associated with a seat in the
vehicle; and
at least one controller configured to
set the airbag to an enabled state in response to
data from the sensor indicating that a force on the seat is
greater than a predetermined force, and
in response to a signal from a nomadic device
indicating that a child profile is assigned to the seat,
override the enabled state such that the airbag does not
deploy in response to an impact of the vehicle.
Adolph
Breed
Sala
REFERENCES
us 5,785,347
US 2012/0028680 Al
US 2012/0053793 Al
REJECTION
July 28, 1998
Feb.2,2012
Mar. 1, 2012
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Adolph, Sala, and Breed.
2
Appeal2017-010452
Application 14/689,144
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-16 as a group. App. Br. 3--4. We select
claim 1 as representative of the group, and decide the appeal of this rejection
on the basis of claim 1 alone. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
The Examiner finds that Adolph teaches an occupant detection sensor;
an airbag; and a controller configured to set the airbag to an enabled state in
response to data from the sensor indicating that a force on the seat is greater
than a predetermined force, and, in response to a signal indicating that a
child profile is assigned to the seat, overriding the enabled state such that the
airbag does not deploy in response to an impact of the vehicle. Final Act. 5
(citing Adolph 3:1-7, 3:23--4:6). Appellants do not dispute these findings.
The Examiner acknowledges that Adolph's signal indicating that a
child is assigned to a seat comes from a sensor rather than from a profile on
a nomadic device. Id. Therefore, the Examiner relies on Sala to teach a
system that receives profile data regarding a passenger, including height,
weight, and gender, the system using the profile information to configure
safety systems (including seat belts and air bags) for optimum safety. Id. at
5-6 ( citing Sala ,r,r 17-22, 29, 31 ); see also id. at 2-3 ("The teachings of
Sala are being used by the Examiner to teach that the safety settings of a
vehicle can be adjusted based on a predefined profile."). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine Adolph with Sala because "including a stored detailed profile of
the occupants of the vehicle to the control systems of the vehicle would
allow for optimum settings to be anticipated based on the passengers of the
vehicle." Id. at 6 ( citing Sala ,r,r 5-6); see also Ans. 5 ( combining Adolph
3
Appeal2017-010452
Application 14/689,144
and Sala achieves "a higher level of flexibility and optimization" of
Adolph's comfort and safety features).
Appellants first argue that Adolph "already optimizes the system for
vehicle safety and allows for optimum settings because Adolph directly
senses whether a child seat is present, and adjusts accordingly." App. Br. 3
(citing Adolph 3:31--4:6). According to Appellants "[t]he examiner appears
to have created a problem within the context of Adolph that does not
otherwise exist for the sole purpose of finding reason to combine Sala
therewith." This argument mischaracterizes the Examiner's reason to
combine Adolph and Sala. The Examiner does not premise the combination
of Adolph and Sala on fixing a "problem" with Adolph. Instead, the
Examiner finds that the combination would improve Adolph's vehicle safety
system:
As discussed by Sala et al., the assigning of profiles to specific
seats within the cockpit of the vehicle allows for greater control
of the safety features and comfort settings within the vehicle
without such settings having to be reprogrammed each time the
vehicle is restarted. The assigning of profiles within a vehicle
allows for much greater flexibility by the various vehicle systems
that control user comfort and safety. While Adolph does teach
to optimize the systems of the vehicle for the safety of
individuals, it is Salsa et al. that teaches that the comfort and
safety features can reach a higher level of flexibility and
optimization by determining ... such features and settings prior
to the occupants entering the vehicle and assigning profiles to
specific seats within the vehicle."
Ans. 5. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
Appellant next argues that in Sala's system, "to the extent there is a
difference between the profile and sensed data, the examiner's proposed
system would default to the sensed data for the purpose of making
4
Appeal2017-010452
Application 14/689,144
adjustments because Sala suggests that the system should verify the profile."
App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2 (stating that "the combined teachings of
Adolph and Sala would have suggested to one of ordinary skill that
conflicting data between a profile and sensed data should be resolved in
favor of the sensed data."). We understand Appellants to be arguing that
under certain circumstances, Sala's system does not use profile data to
configure vehicle safety systems, but instead relies on sensed data to do so,
which is contrary to the requirement in claim 1 to use profile data.
This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Sala teaches
verifying the identity of the driver and front seat passenger by comparing
profile data with sensed data (e.g., comparing passenger weight listed in a
profile with passenger weight measured by a front seat cushion load sensor).
Sala ,r 29. If there is a mismatch between the two weights, "personalization
features will be disabled." Id. But Appellants do not dispute that when the
driver or passenger identity is verified, Sala's system uses profile data to
configure safety settings. Thus, Sala's added verification feature does not
negate the functionality on which the Examiner relies in the proposed
combination.
Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's determination
that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1-16 as unpatentable over Adolph, Sala,
and Breed.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16 is
affirmed.
5
Appeal2017-010452
Application 14/689,144
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
6