Ex Parte Gharsalli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

13088740 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/088,740 04/18/2011
719 7590
Caterpillar Inc,
Intellectual Property Dept.
100 N.E. Adams Street
AH9510
PEORIA, IL 61629-9510
09/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ferid Gharsalli
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.
10-0179 9113
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
US _Docket_ Clerk@cat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FERID GHARSALLI and CLAYTON D. REITZ
Appeal2015-005477
Application 13/088,740
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Caterpillar Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005477
Application 13/088,740
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to an object detection system for large
machines such as excavators and haul trucks. Spec. i-fi-12-3. The object
detection system helps in identifying when objects, such as light duty
vehicles, come into close proximity of the large machine. Spec. i1 3.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An object warning system for a machine, comprising:
an object detection system;
an operator interface including a visual display; and
a controller in communication with the object detection
system and the operator interface, the controller configured to
control the display to represent a warning level as a function of a
status of the machine and a distance of an object relative to the
machine.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5, 16-21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by Coats (US 2009/0259400 Al, Oct. 15, 2009).
2. Claims 6-15, 22, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Coats.
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1-5, 16-21, and 24
Appellants argue "Coats does not disclose, teach or suggest 'represent
a warning level' as required by independent claims 1, 16, and 24." App. Br.
5 (emphasis omitted). Under Appellants' interpretation, the claimed
"warning level varies in response to the varying distance of the object
2
Appeal2015-005477
Application 13/088,740
relative to the machine," suggesting "a plurality of warning levels ...
corresponding to varying distances." Id. According to Appellants, "Coats
does not teach or suggest [such a varying] warning level. Coats only teaches
or discloses a discrete warning of the presence of a dangerous object." App.
Br. 6. Similarly, Appellants argue "the discrete warning of the presence of a
dangerous object does not vary as a function of distance or in response to
distance, it only varies if there is or is not a dangerous object present." App.
Br. 6.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Coats discloses an object detection system with visual representations to
indicate a dangerous obstacle detected within one or more blind spots. Final
Act. 5---6 (citing Coats i-fi-121, 23, 24, 40). The Examiner further finds that
the "distance of an object can be indicated if it is within the blind spot so the
object must be within a specific distance in order to be indicated in the
display." Final Act. 6. We agree with the Examiner that a warning that
indicates an object is within a blind spot of a machine discloses a warning
level as a function of a distance of an object relative to the machine. The
blind spots depicted in Coats are a finite distance from the machine. See
Coats Fig. 3. Thus, a warning that indicates an object is within one of these
blind spots also indicates that the object is within a certain distance from the
machine. Further, Coats also includes a warning that indicates the criticality
of objects in various blind spots, and this criticality is related to which blind
spots are closer to the machine, further supporting the Examiner's finding
that Coats teaches a warning level as a function of the distance of an object
to the machine. See Coats i124.
3
Appeal2015-005477
Application 13/088,740
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 16-
21, and 24.
II. Claims 6-15, 22, 23, and 25
Appellants argue "Coats, considered as a whole does not disclose,
teach, or suggest a warning level defined by a visual representation
corresponding to a stopping distance as is specifically required by claims 6-
15, 22-23, and 25 .... " App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that "the claimed limitations, a visual
representation corresponding with the stopping distance defines the warning
level, are not claiming the warning level based on stopping distance." Ans.
3. Based on this claim interpretation, the Examiner finds that Coats'
disclosure of"[ v ]arying color depending on criticality of blind spot due to
obstacle detections and criticality is either a 0 or a 1 represents warning level
corresponding with distance of an object relative to the machine," teaches
the claimed iimitations. Ans. 3--4. We disagree with the Examiner's claim
interpretation. Claims 6-15, 22, 23, and 25 each require that the warning
level be a function of stopping distance of the machine relative to the object.
The Examiner has not established that Coats teaches a warning level that is a
function of stopping distance.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6-
15, 22, 23, and 25.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 16-21, and 24 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 6-15, 22, 23, and 25 is reversed.
4
Appeal2015-005477
Application 13/088,740
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5