Ex Parte Moshchuk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

12908689 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/908,689 10/20/2010
65798 7590 08/19/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nikolai K. Moshchuk
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.
P010376-RD-MJL 4365
EXAMINER
JABR, FADEY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2016 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 NIKOLAI K. MOSHCHUK, SHIH-KEN CHEN,
CHAD T. ZAGORSKI, and AAMRAPALI CHATTERJEE
Appeal2014-007453
Application 12/908,689
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nikolai K. Moshchuk et al. (Appellants) seek review, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify General Motors as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007453
Application 12/908,689
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter relates "to a system and method for
determining an optimal vehicle path for the proper amount of braking and
steering during a vehicle collision avoidance maneuver, where the optimal
braking is determined by vehicle speed and road surface coefficient of
friction using a two-dimensional table generated off-line and the optimal
steering is determined based on the optimal braking and a friction ellipse."
Spec. iJ 1. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below, with emphasis added:
1. A method for providing an optimal collision
avoidance path for a host vehicle that may
potentially collide with a target vehicle, said method
compnsmg:
providing off-line an optimization look-up
table for storing on the host vehicle that includes a
plurality of optimal vehicle braking or longitudinal
decelerations and optimal distances based on a
range of speeds of the host vehicle and coej]7cients
of friction of a roadway surface;
determining a current speed of the host
vehicle during the potential collision;
determining a coefficient of friction of a
roadway surface on which the host vehicle is
traveling during the potential collision;
determining, using a microprocessor, an
optimal longitudinal deceleration or braking of the
host vehicle for the optimal path for the current
speed of the host vehicle and the coefficient of
friction of the roadway surface that the host vehicle
is traveling on using the look-up table;
determining an optimal lateral acceleration or
steering of the host vehicle for the optimal path; and
2
Appeal2014-007453
Application 12/908,689
providing the optimal braking and the
optimal steering to the host vehicle to follow the
optimal path to avoid the collision with the target
vehicle.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Takagi (US 8,155,879 B2, issued Apr.
10, 2012).
2. Claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Takagi and Trombley (US 2007/0213911 Al,
published Sept. 13, 2007).
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Takagi and Sugimoto (US 5,842,755, issued Dec. 1, 1998).
DISCUSSION
Rejection I -The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13, 15-18, and20under35U.S.C.§102(e)
Independent claim 1 recites "providing off-line an optimization look-
up table for storing on the host vehicle that includes a plurality of optimal
vehicle braking or longitudinal decelerations and optimal distances based on
a range of speeds of the host vehicle and coefficients of friction of a roadway
surface." Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The other
independent claims-I 0 and 16-recite similar limitations. See id. at 23, 24.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner found these limitations
satisfied by Takagi. See Final Act. 5-6 (dated Oct. 16, 2013).
Appellants contend that Takagi does not satisfy the "coefficients of
friction of a roadway surface" aspect of the limitations at issue because,
3
Appeal2014-007453
Application 12/908,689
"[a]s described beginning at column 12, line 53 [of Takagi], and shown
clearly in figure lOB, Takagi's 'initial solution map' only considers vehicle
speed and relative distance to the obstacle" and "does not in any way include
or consider coefficients of friction of the roadway surface, as claimed."
Appeal Br. 12. We agree. As noted by Appellants, the system disclosed in
"Takagi only takes roadway coefficient of friction into account later in the
process, when calculating actual braking (deceleration)-not in the initial
(off-line) look-up table calculation." Id. "This is described in column 18 of
Takagi, where [the reference] explains that if wheel lock of one or more
wheels is determined to be imminent (based on braking torque, wheel load
and coefficient of friction), brake torque control is transferred to an anti-lock
brake control section." Id.; see, e.g., Takagi, col. 18, 11. 10-26 (discussing
the use of a "road surface friction coefficient").
In the Answer, the Examiner states:
Takagi discloses look-up table and coefficient of friction (map,
Figure 8, lOB Map, Col 9, line 25 - 55, calculates initial state
vectors, with Col 10, line 31 - 52, µis a friction coefficient, and
Col 12, line 45 - Col 13, line 38, Col 14, lines 58 - 64, Col 18,
lines 1 -38, Col 21, lines 25 - 30).
Ans. 2.
Responding to this statement, Appellants note, and we agree, that
"although Takagi does teach about a look-up table (Fig. lOB), and separately
[teaches] about coefficient of friction (column 10)" (and column 18), Takagi
does not teach using coefficients of friction of a roadway in the context of
the identified "look-up table"-i.e., the Initial Solution Map in Figure lOB.
Reply Br. 2; see, e.g., Takagi, col. 12, 1. 60 - col. 13, 1. 31. Further, the
additional disclosures relied on by the Examiner (Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 2)
regarding the limitations at issue do not support the relevant findings.
4
Appeal2014-007453
Application 12/908,689
Accordingly, we do not sustain the decision to reject claims 1, 10, and 16, or
the decision to reject claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20, which
depend therefrom.
Rejections 2 and 3 -The rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 9,
12, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9 depend from independent claim 1, claims 12 and 14
depend from independent claim 10, and claim 19 depends from independent
claim 16. Appeal Br. 21-25 (Claims App.). The Examiner's reliance on
Trombley (regarding Rejection 2) and Sugimoto (regarding Rejection 3)
does not remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of Takagi, discussed
above. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 19.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5