Ex Parte Holland

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2016

12882893 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/882,893 09/15/2010
65798 7590 09/06/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven W. Holland
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.
P012214-RD-MJL 3789
EXAMINER
BELUR,DEEPA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2016 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 STEVEN W. HOLLAND
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
Technology Center 2400
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to social networking with
autonomous agents, including non-human autonomous agents, such as
vehicles. (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed
limitations in italics, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A social internet network comprising:
a plurality of human participants of the network;
a plurality of non-human participants of the network; and
a server storing information about the human and non-
human participants, and providing a communications link
between the participants that allows the human participants to
contact the non-human participants.
REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Rork et al. (US 2011/0045842 Al; published Feb. 24,
2011).
Claims 4, and 10-16 stand rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Rork and Directed Electronics Canada,
Start Your Car With Your Smartphone With Viper®, Marketwire
(05/20/2010) (hereafter "DEC").
2
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 17
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Rork discloses "a plurality of
non-human participants of the network; and a server storing information
about the human and non-human participants," as recited in independent
claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 1 7?
Appellant contends Rork does not disclose non-human participants in
a social network. (App. Br. 7-9.) Rather, Appellant argues "Rork merely
states that any occupant in a vehicle may be a user." (App. Br. 7.)
Appellant also argues "providing vehicle information ... does not expressly
or inherently disclose a non-human participant of a network." (Reply Br. 1,
emphasis omitted.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Rork describes
providing automatic updates to a social network based on vehicle events.
(Rork Abstract.) To accomplish this, Rork describes that a social
networking tool (an interface for communicating with a social networking
engine) may be executed at a vehicle condition evaluation system (VCES) in
a vehicle. (Rork i-f 50.) The social networking tool may communicate with
an information engine, which includes vehicle information, such as vehicle
branding and ownership information. (Rork i-fi-1 59, 60.) GPS data may also
be received from the vehicle. (Rork i-fi-157, 61.) With this information, Rork
describes the social networking tool transmits messages, such as "Joe's Ford
Escape is leaving Dearborn, Mich," to a social networking engine (such as
Facebook). (Rork i-fi-150, 53, 60, 64, Fig. 6.)
Although, as cited by Appellant, Rork states "a user may be any
occupant in a vehicle," (Rork i-f 56), we agree with the Examiner that Rork
3
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
discloses the claimed "non-human participants" in addition to Rork's human
users. (Cf, e.g., Spec. i-f 5 ("In one non-limiting embodiment, the non-
human autonomous agent is a vehicle that allows the vehicle owner, or user,
to contact the vehicle through the social network to perform some operation
.... ").) As set forth above, Rork describes that the social networking tool,
which transmits the messages to the social networking engine, may be
executed in a vehicle. The messages transmitted include information
provided by the vehicle, such as the GPS information. The messages further
include information about the vehicle that is stored in the information
engine. We find such activity to constitute "participating" in the social
internet network. Accordingly, given the disclosure in Rork, we agree with
the Examiner that Rork discloses a "plurality of non-human participants of
the network; and a server storing information about the human and non-
human participants." (See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 11.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Rork discloses the disputed limitation. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1and17.
For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's § 102 (b) rejection of
dependent claims 2, 6, 7, and 18, which were not argued separately.
Claims 3 and 19
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Rork discloses "wherein the
non-human participants include vehicles, and the vehicles have their own
profile screen as being one of the participants of the network," as recited in
dependent claims 3 and 19?
4
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 50, 60, and Figure 6 of Rork to
disclose the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11.) The Examiner
finds:
Rork discloses the social networking system using the vehicle
enabled computing system VECS, with a front end interface or
display screen at the vehicle dashboard, as illustrated in FIG. 6.
This display screen is the profile screen for the vehicle[.]
(Ans. 11.)
Appellant contends Rork does not disclose that a vehicle has its own
profile screen. (App. Br. 9-10.) Appellant argues the display in Figure 6 is
part of the human user's profile, not a non-human participant's profile.
(Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellant. Rork describes Figure 6 as "show[ing] a
display viewed by a recipient of a social networking message" and
"illustrat[ing] ... the content of the message when the user is the vehicle
O\vner." (Rork i-fi-133, 83.) The Examiner does not provided citation, nor do
we discern from Rork' s disclosure, that the display shown in Figure 6
depicts the vehicle's own profile screen or is part of the vehicle dashboard.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of dependent claims 3 and 19. For the same reasons, we do not
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of dependent claim 5,
and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 4, which depend from
claim 3, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of dependent claim
20, which depends from claim 19.
5
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
Claims 8 and 9
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding Rork discloses "wherein
information provided to the network for non-human participants is
controlled by a human participant of the network," as recited in dependent
claim 8 and "wherein the human participant selects what other human
participants of the network are allowed to access to access information about
the non-human participants," as recited in dependent claim 9?
With respect to claim 8, Appellant contends Rork's disclosure that a
user may use BLUETOOTH to establish preferences does not disclose the
disputed limitation. (App. Br. 10.) With respect to claim 9, Appellant
similarly contends that establishing preferences as disclosed by Rork does
not disclose the disputed limitation. (App. Br. 10.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Rork describes that
the social networking tool can be configured to establish preferences, such
as "setting an option to automatically transmit messages to the social
networking engine 106 (i.e., without receiving authorization from the user),
which and how many social networking engines 106 to send a message, to
whom to send the messages, when to send the messages, and how often to
send the messages." (Rork i-f 53.) We agree with the Examiner that Rork's
disclosure of setting preferences to automatically transmit messages to the
social networking engine discloses the disputed limitation in claim 8. (Final
Act. 4.) We also agree with the Examiner that Rork's disclosure of setting
preferences on to whom to send the messages discloses the disputed
limitation in claim 9. (Final Act. 4--5.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 8 and 9.
6
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
Claims 10 and 12
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rork and
DEC teaches or suggests "said vehicle providing information to the network
relating to the vehicle's location, the vehicle's estimated time of arrival at a
destination, and unlocking vehicle doors," as recited in independent claim 10
and commensurately recited in dependent claims 12? 1
The Examiner finds "GPS/estimated arrival time is a standard feature
of any GPS navigation system." (Final Act. 7-9.) The Examiner further
finds "[a]s illustrated in FIG. 6, the display viewed by a recipient of a social
networking message, indicates the arrival time of a non-human participant or
vehicle 'Ford Escape' belonging to the human participant 'Joe'." (Ans. 13.)
Appellant argues Rork does not disclose providing an estimated time
of arrival. (App. Br. 11.) Appellant further argues that providing GPS
estimated arrival time "is not a standard feature of a common GPS device."
(App. Br. 11.)
We agree with Appellant. While Figure 6 of Rork teaches providing
an actual arrival time, we do not discern that it teaches providing an
estimated arrival time, as provided by the claim. Moreover, the Examiner
provides no support for the finding that "estimated arrival time is a standard
feature of any GPS navigation system."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 10 and dependent claim 12. For the same
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16, which depend from claim 10.
1 This limitation is also commensurately recited in claim 4, which was
addressed supra.
7
Appeal2015-004010
Application 12/882,893
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant,
we need not address the merits of Appellant's other arguments regarding
claims 10 and 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7-9, 17, and 18 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 5, 10-16, 19, and 20 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8