Ex Parte Peng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201613689014 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/689,014 11/29/2012 Jufeng Peng 16091.105017 1024 86528 7590 12/21/2016 Slay den Grubert Beard PLLC 401 Congress Avenue Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER SMITH, ISAAC G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): trosson @ sgbfirm.com patent @ sgbfirm. com dallen @ sgbfirm. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUFENG PENG, DUANE LEE MARZINZIK, BRIAN MARK FIELDS, J. LYNN WILSON, BENJAMIN F. BOWNE, SUNISH MENON, DUSTIN CHARLES SCHNEIDER, and SCOTT THOMAS CHRISTENSEN Appeal 2015-002725 Application 13/689,014 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jufeng Peng et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-002725 Application 13/689,014 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 14. A tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed on by a processor, perform the following steps: determining the orientation of a mobile device relative to the orientation of a vehicle via collected mobile device orientation data and collected vehicle orientation data; transforming collected mobile device motion data in view of the determined orientation of the mobile device relative to the orientation of the vehicle so that the collected mobile device motion data corresponds to the motion of the vehicle; determining secondary movement data of the mobile device based at least on the collected mobile device orientation data and the collected mobile device motion data, the secondary movement data of the mobile device corresponding to changes in the orientation of the mobile device relative to the vehicle; determining at least one driver interaction with the mobile device based on the determined secondary movement data; and calculating an insurance premium based at least on (a) the collected mobile device motion data corresponding to the motion of the vehicle and (b) the determined at least one driver interaction with the mobile device. REJECTIONS 1) Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. 2) Claims 1, 2, 4, 6—19, 21, and 23—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abramson (US 2012/0071151 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2012), Edge (US 2012/0172055 Al, pub. July 5, 2012), and Collopy (US 2010/0131304 Al, pub. May 27, 2010). 2 Appeal 2015-002725 Application 13/689,014 3) Claims 3, 5, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abramson, Edge, Collopy, and Jallon (US 2012/0185204 Al, pub. July 19, 2002). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Appellants do not contest the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, and, thus, waive any argument of error. Reply Br. 2. Therefore, we summarily affirm the rejection of claim 27. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984—85 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an Appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection). Rejection 2 Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6—19, 21, and 23—27 as a group. Appeal Br. 5—7. We select claim 14 as representative and claims 1, 2, 4, 6—13, 15—19, 21, and 23—27 stand or fall with claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Abramson discloses the subject matter of claim 14 except for explicitly disclosing “specific ‘algorithms’” for the orientation algorithm and the transformation algorithm and does not disclose the recited insurance premium calculation algorithm. Final Act. 7—9. The Examiner finds that Edge discloses “target positioning within a mobile 3 Appeal 2015-002725 Application 13/689,014 structure . . . determined using Euler angles and the product of rotation matrices.” Id. at 9, citing, Edge 44—53. The Examiner finds that Collopy discloses “an accelerometer located inside a mobile device is used to gather data related to movement of vehicle which mobile device is located within, where this information can be used to determine insurance rates . . . [and] premiums.” Id. at 10, citing, Collopy H 51, 52, 77. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Abramson with the algorithms of Edge and output data “to a third-party such as an insurance company, as taught by Abramson [], and to further use vehicle motion data . . . to determine an insurance premium, as taught by Collopy [], in order to disclose ‘real time insurance rates to a vehicle operator.” Id., citing, Collopy 12. Appellants contend that the “claimed invention as a whole would not have been obvious” based on the combination of Abramson, Edge, and Collopy. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants state that Abramson discloses “determining ‘secondary movement data’ of the mobile device corresponding to changes in the orientation of the mobile device relative to the vehicle (e.g. by analyzing movements of a mobile device during a period of texting or web-surfmg).” Id. at 5—6; Reply Br. 3 (Appellants concede “Abramson teaches the claimed determination of movement of the mobile device relative to the vehicle.”). Appellants argue that Collopy discloses “using a log of cell phone records as input for determining an insurance rate but teaches nothing about detecting the orientation or movements of the phone.” Id. at 6. Appellants argue that the claimed invention would not have been obvious because the references fail to teach separating “motion data collected by a mobile device into (a) driving data and (b) user-mobile 4 Appeal 2015-002725 Application 13/689,014 device interaction data, and then use both of the separated types of data as input for calculating an insurance premium.” Id. The Examiner maintains that Collopy discloses real time insurance rate generation based on data gathered by an accelerometer in a mobile device located within a vehicle. Ans. 6—7. For the following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 14. Claim 14 does not recite the separation of motion data collected by the mobile device into primary movement data and secondary movement data. Claim 14 recites “determining secondary movement data of the mobile device based at least on the collected mobile device orientation data and the collected mobile device motion data, the secondary movement data of the mobile device corresponding to changes in the orientation of the mobile device relative to the vehicle.” As stated above, Appellants concede that Abramson discloses determining secondary movement data of the mobile device relative to the vehicle as claimed. Reply Br. 6. Appellants’ contention concerning the failure of Abramson to disclose separating secondary movement data is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 14. Collopy is directed to “disclosing real-time insurance rates to a vehicle operator.” Collopy 12. Collopy discloses that data from GPS 210 and accelerometer 220 located in mobile device 105 “can be forwarded to the insurance provider system 135 for processing as part of an insurance rate determination.” Id.^ 51. Collopy also discloses monitoring “real time usage of the cell phone while driving . . . and appropriate insurance rate determined and charged.” Id. 177. The Examiner’s finding that Collopy discloses real time insurance rate generation based on data gathered by an 5 Appeal 2015-002725 Application 13/689,014 accelerometer in a mobile device located within a vehicle is, therefore, supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants fail to persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or rationale, quoted above, for the combination of Abramson, Edge, and Collopy, which we determine to be reasonable and supported by rational underpinnings. See KSR Intern. Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6—13, 15—19, 21, and 23—27 which fall with claim 14. Rejection 3 Appellants do not present any separate argument contesting the rejection of claims 3, 5, 20, and 22 as unpatentable over the combination of Abramson, Edge, Collopy, and Jallon, and, thus, fail to apprise us of error. Appeal Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 3, 5, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27 is affirmed. 6 Appeal 2015-002725 Application 13/689,014 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation