Ex Parte Ignaczak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

14191505 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/191,505 02/27/2014 Brad Ignaczak 081276-9711-US00 5135
34044 7590 11/02/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
MELTON, TODD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRAD IGNACZAK, OLIVER SCHWINDT, JAMES KIM, and
MICHAEL NEUMEYER
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—18, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, embodiments of the claimed invention
“relate to a brake control system for a vehicle, specifically for controlling
vehicle braking in response to objects detected to the rear of the vehicle”
(Spec. 11).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A control system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
a dynamic state sensor;
an object detection sensor; and,
a controller configured to:
determine a path of the vehicle based on a signal
from the dynamic state sensor;
detect an object based on the vehicle’s path and a
signal from the object
detection sensor; and,
control a braking system of the vehicle based on
the determined path and the detected object, wherein, the
controller is configured to control the braking system by
prefilling the brake system when the object is detected
regardless of a value of the signal from the dynamic state
sensor, applying a first braking amount when a value of the
signal from the dynamic state sensor reaches a first threshold,
and applying a second braking amount when a value of the
signal from the dynamic state sensor reaches a
second threshold.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—5, 8—14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Inoue (US 9,020,727 B2; issued Apr. 28, 2015), and
Chen (US 7,018,004 B2; issued Mar. 28, 2006).
2
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
2. Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Inoue, Chen, and Takagi (US 8,972,142 B2; issued Mar.
3,2015).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that:
1. Inoue in view of Chen teaches or suggests a “controller” configured to
control the braking system by “prefilling the brake system when the object is
detected regardless of a value of the signal from the dynamic state sensor’’
(claim 1, emphasis added).
2. The combination of Inoue, Chen and Takagi teaches or suggests that
the controller “applies the first braking amount based on a signal from a
radar sensor,” and “applies the second braking amount based on a signal
from an ultrasonic sensor” (claim 6, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Invention
1. Appellants disclose a controller that controls vehicle braking based on
detected stationary objects to the rear of the vehicle, wherein the controller
receives the vehicle’s dynamic state (driving parameters) from the vehicle
speed sensor, the steering sensor, and the object detection sensor, referred to
collectively as “dynamic state sensors” (| 19). If the controller determines
that an object is in or near the vehicle’s predicted path, an automatic braking
procedure is implemented in which the brake system is signaled by the
3
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
controller to prefill the brakes as the vehicle approaches the detected object,
wherein prefilling the brakes prepares the vehicle for braking before the
driver operates the brake pedal (120).
Chen
2. Chen discloses a system and method for brake pre-charging which
includes pre-filling brakes based on proximity information from a forward-
looking sensor, to reduce the initial delay associated with braking (Abstract).
Vehicle speed sensor, proximity sensor, and brake pressure sensor are
coupled to the controller (col. 3,11. 12—14), wherein the proximity sensor
senses range to target object, range rate to target object, and other relational
parameters, and then generates proximity signals used by the controller to
generate a threat of collision signal (col. 3,11. 33—39). In operation, the
controller receives a proximity signal, and once the controller is activated
responsive to the proximity signal, fluid is forced from the brake fluid line
into the brake’s bore in order to move the brake pad closer to the rotor (col.
6,11. 8-14).
Takagi
3. Takagi discloses a rear sensor that detects an obstacle behind a
vehicle, and a rear contact prevention device that controls travel of the
vehicle to prevent contact between the vehicle and the obstacle detected
(Abstract). A sonar uses ultrasonic waves to detect an obstacle existing on a
trajectory along which the vehicle is to back up, and detects a distance
between the obstacle and the vehicle (col. 5,11. 10-12). Further, a radar (or
laser radar or a monocular or stereo camera) capable of detecting an obstacle
positioned far from the vehicle is supplementarily used as a device that
detects an obstacle existing on the trajectory along which the vehicle is to
4
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
back up (col. 5,11. 12—18). A radar is able to detect an obstacle positioned
far from the vehicle as compared to the sonar that detects a nearby obstacle
behind the vehicle, and thus, the detection range of the radar is equal or
smaller than the detection range of the sonar with the radar having higher
directivity than the sonar (col. 5,11. 26—34).
IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Although Appellants concede “Chen teaches that the brake system is
pre-charged,” Appellants contend Chen teaches that “this pre-charging
occurs only when a possible accident is indicated,” and “not every time an
object is detected” (App. Br. 6). According to Appellants, in order to
determine that an accident is possible, “dynamic state information is needed
(e.g., speed and direction), in addition to the presence of an object” (id. ).
Thus, Appellants contend that Inoue and Chen do not teach or suggest
prefilling the brake system “regardless of a value of the signal from the
dynamic state sensor” (id. at 7, citing claim 1).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no
error with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious
over Inoue and Chen.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
5
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions, claim 1 does not preclude pre-
charging “only” when a possible accident is indicated, and does not require
that the pre-charging occurs “every time” an object is detected (App. Br. 6).
In particular, claim 1 merely recites prefilling the brake system “when the
object is detected regardless of a value of the signal from the dynamic state
sensor” (claim 1 (emphasis added)).
As the Examiner points out, Appellants’ Specification defines a
“dynamic state sensor” as a “vehicle speed sensor,” a “steering sensor,”
and/or an “object detection sensor” (Ans. 2; FF 1). Since, as the Examiner
points out, claim 1 (or claim 10) recites a “dynamic state sensor” and “an
“object detection sensor,” we find no error with the Examiner’s broad but
reasonable interpretation of a “dynamic state sensor” as separate from (i.e.,
not including) an object detection sensor, which comprises only either a
vehicle speed sensor or a steering sensor. Ans. 2.
Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we conclude claim 1 merely requires prefilling the brake
system “when the object is detected” by an object detection sensor,
regardless of a value of the signal from the dynamic state sensor, such as the
vehicle speed sensor or steering sensor (claim 1).
We find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Chen for teaching and
suggesting a “controller” configured to control the braking system by
“prefilling the brake system when the object is detected regardless of a value
of the signal from the dynamic state sensor,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3;
FF2). In particular, Chen discloses a controller that receives a proximity
signal from a proximity object sensor, and once the controller is activated
responsive to the proximity signal, fluid is forced from the brake fluid line
6
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
into the brake’s bore in order to move the brake pad closer to the rotor (FF
2). That is, like Appellants’ invention (FF 1), Chen discloses controlling
vehicle braking based on detected objects in proximity (i.e., near) to the
vehicle, wherein if the controller determines that an object is in proximity to
the vehicle’s predicted path, the brake system is signaled by the controller to
prefill the brakes to prepare the vehicle for braking (FF 2).
As the Examiner finds, Chen teaches that “the controller monitors
proximity information in addition to vehicle speed, driver intent, and current
brake pressure” but the controller does not pre-charge (pre-fill) the brake
“until information from the proximity sensor indicates a possible accident
will occur.” (Ans. 3.) Although Appellants contend that, in Chen, “dynamic
state information is needed (i.e., speed and direction), in addition to the
presence of an object” to determine with a possible accident will occur (App.
Br. 6), other than mere attorney conclusory statement, Appellants do not cite
to any portion in Chen for support. Rather, as the Examiner finds, Chen
discloses a controller that receives a proximity signal from a “proximity
object sensor” (i.e., an object presence sensor), and once the controller is
activated responsive to the proximity signal (i.e., the detection that an object
is present), the brake is prefilled (FF 2). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Chen teaches and suggests the contested limitations of claim 1.
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claim 10 not argued separately and, thus,
falling therewith (App. Br. 7), and claims 2—5, 8, 9, 11—14, 17, and 18
respectively depending from claims 1 and 10, over Inoue in view of Chen.
7
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
Claim 6
As for claim 6, although Appellants concede that Takagi discloses
“options for detecting an obstacle,” such as radar and sonar, Appellants
contend Takagi discloses that “radar 14 . . . detects an obstacle in front of the
vehicle 11, as compared to “sonar 12 that detects an obstacle behind the
vehicle” (App. Br. 7). Thus, according to Appellants, “Takagi fails to
associate signals from a particular type of sensor to an applied braking
amount” (id.).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no
error with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 6 would have been obvious
over Inoue and Chen, in further view of Takagi.
We note that although Appellants contend that Takagi discloses that
“radar 14 . . . detects an obstacle in front of the vehicle 11, as compared to
“sonar 12 that detects an obstacle behind the vehicle” (App. Br. 7), nothing
in claim 6 precludes detection from in front and behind a vehicle.
We find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Takagi for teaching
and suggesting applying a “first braking amount” based on a signal from a
“radar sensor,” and applying a “second braking amount” based on a signal
from an “ultrasonic sensor,” as recited in claim 6 (Ans. 3^4; FF3). In
particular, Takagi discloses using ultrasonic waves to detect an obstacle
existing on a trajectory, and supplementarily using a radar to detect an
obstacle positioned far from the vehicle, wherein the radar is able to detect
an obstacle positioned far from the vehicle as compared to the sonar, with
the radar having higher directivity than the sonar (FF 3). We agree with the
Examiner that Takagi teaches “the radar and the sonar having different
8
Appeal 2017-003057
Application 14/191,505
ranges” and thus at least suggests “applying different braking amounts when
obstacles are detected at different distances” (Ans. 3^4; FF 3.) As the
Examiner explains, Takagi at least suggests that the controller performs “the
functions of applying brakes to stop a vehicle when an obstacle is nearby,”
as detected by a “sonar,” while performs the functions of “applying the
brakes to slow a vehicle when an obstacle is distant,” as detected by a
“radar,” and thus, “Takagi is considered to meet the limitations recited by
claim 6.” Id.
Based on this record, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument
that “Takagi fails to associate signals from a particular type of sensor to an
applied braking amount” (App. Br. 7). Thus, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6, and claims 7, 15, and 16
falling therewith over Inoue, Chen, and Takagi.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
9