Ex Parte Sala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12868565 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/868,565 08/25/2010
65798 7590 06/16/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dore! M. Sala
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.
P011839-RD-MJL 6148
EXAMINER
TRIVEDI, ATUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2016 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 DOREL M. SALA, JENNE-TAI WANG, MARK 0. NEAL,
STEVEN C. TENGLER, and STEVEN SW ANSON
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dorel M. Sala et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 in this application. The
Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify General Motors as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter, and it recites:
1. A method for recognizing and verifying an identity of one or
more occupants of a vehicle, said method comprising:
providing profile data for a plurality of individuals;
loading the profile data for the plurality of individuals into
a database onboard the vehicle, including wirelessly
downloading the profile data from a telematics service to which
the profile data had previously been uploaded;
entering the vehicle by the one or more occupants of the
vehicle;
recognizing an identity of the one or more occupants of the
vehicle;
starting a timer and retrieving the profile data from the
database for the one or more occupants of the vehicle who were
recognized;
calculating theoretical cockpit configuration parameters
based on the profile data for each of the recognized occupants;
adjusting cockpit configuration by each of the recognized
occupants;
determining actual cockpit configuration parameters after
a certain time has elapsed since the timer was started for each of
the recognized occupants;
comparing the actual cockpit configuration parameters
with expected cockpit configuration parameters for each of the
recognized occupants using a mathematical similarity function;
and
verifYing the identity of each of the recognized occupants
by computing the difference between the value of the
mathematical similarity function and a predefined threshold, and
enabling personalization features if the value of the difference
meets a predefined criteria.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App., emphasis added).
2
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
REJECTION ON APPEAL2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sadler (US 2003/0204290 Al, pub. Oct. 30, 2003) and
Breed (US 2008/0046200 Al, pub. Feb. 21, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims l, 11, and 15
Appellants challenge the Examiner's findings that the cited prior art
(i.e., Sadler and Breed) discloses two limitations. First, Appellants assert the
prior art does not disclose the verification step recited by claims 1 and 11.
Appeal Br. 13-15. Second, Appellants assert the prior art also does not
disclose the step of calculating theoretical cockpit configuration parameters
using an anthropometric model and inverse kinematic calculations, as recited
by claims 11 and 15. Id. at 16-17, 20. We are persuaded the Examiner has
not demonstrated the prior art discloses either step.
Turning first to the verification step, claims l and 11 recite "verifying
the identity ... by computing the difference between the value of the
mathematical similarity function and a predefined threshold." Appeal Br.
27, 29-30 (Claims App.). Finding Sadler does not disclose the above step,
the Examiner identifies paragraphs 642---643 from Breed as evidence the
recited verification step was known. Final Act. 3---6. In addition, the
Examiner finds, "Breed teaches using differences in measured weight, for
2 On May 1, 2013, Appellants filed an Amendment after the Final Action
amending independent claim 1 and cancelling dependent claim 3. See
Amendment filed May 1, 2013. The Examiner entered the Amendment on
May 29, 2013. See Adv. Act. filed May 29, 2013. Therefore, claim 3 is not
before us on appeal.
3
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
example, to determine whether a child seat is in the car, and whether
therefore an adjustment is necessary based on a small child riding in the
vehicle (i-f 378-379)." Id. at 2. Moreover, "Breed teaches that if the
measured weight falls within a certain range, the vehicle will recognize that
a particular driver is sitting in the driver's seat, and will adjust the seat to the
proper position for that driver (i-f 419)." Id. In the Answer, the Examiner
explains further that Breed discloses the verification step "because i1 419 of
Breed teaches that the vehicle will store a new seat position if the driver
manually adjusts the seat within a predetermined time interval." Ans. 2.
"Breed also teaches at i1 643 that the seat position algorithm will adjust when
and if the driver makes adjustments after being dissatisfied with initial
algorithm choices for those positions." Id.
Appellants contend those Breed paragraphs do not evidence a system
that uses the actual cockpit configuration parameters of an occupant to verify
the identity of the occupant. Appeal Br. 14--15. In other words, according
to Appellant, Breed does not make a determination that the person initially
recognized as an occupant is actually the person occupying the vehicle by
evaluating the adjustments the occupant has made to the cockpit after
entering the vehicle. "Appellant[ s] maintain[] that storing a seat position
based on an adjustment is not the same as, and cannot be considered to be a
teaching of, identifying an occupant based on adjustments made by the
occupant." Reply Br. 1.
Breed teaches, "[b ]y use of a combination of weight and height, the
driver of the vehicle can in general be positively identified among the class
of drivers who operate the vehicle." Breed i1419 (emphasis added). As
such, the system will automatically adjust the seat to the proper position
4
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
determined for a driver within a similarly identified weight and height class.
Id. Of course, the driver may also define the proper position differently,
which the system will save to a second table that will be used in the future
for the associated height and weight. Id. Notably absent from Breed's
paragraph 419, however, is any discussion of using the information about
occupant selected configurations to perform any type of validation process
to affirmatively identify the occupant after already being initially identified
by the system, as required by claims 1 and 11. See Appeal Br. 27, 29-30
(Claims App.) ("recognizing an identity of the one or more occupants ...
verifying the identity of each of the recognized occupants ... " (claim 1 );
"retrieving the profile data from the database for the driver who is associated
with the remote keyless entry device which was activated ... verifying the
identity of the driver ... "(claim 11)).
In paragraph 378, Breed states, "[t]he measured pressure or weight or
distribution thereof can also be used in combination with the data from the
transmitter/receiver assemblies 49, 50, 51, 52 and 54 of FIG. SC to provide
an identification of the occupants in the seat," but, in context, that statement
suggests an initial identification of the occupant. Breed i-f 378. Consistent
with our understanding, the Examiner notes paragraph 378 describes using
weight to determine first whether the occupant is a child or an adult and, if a
child, whether the child is in a car-seat. The Examiner has not pointed to
anything in either paragraphs 378 or 379, nor have we found anything,
indicating Breed contemplated using that identification data to validate the
identity of someone who has already been identified to the system.
5
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
Nor has the Examiner explained how Breed's paragraphs 642 and 643
evidence that it was known to use an occupant's adjustments to the cockpit
configuration to verify their identity. Paragraph 642 states,
If during some set time period after the seat has been positioned,
the operator changes these adjustments, the new positions of the
seat are stored in association with an occupant height class in a
second table within control circuit 254. When the occupant again
occupies the seat and his or her height has once again been
determined, the control circuit 254 will find an entry in the
second table which takes precedence over the basic, original
table and the seat returns to the adjusted position.
Breed i-f 642. Paragraph 643 is similar, but is more specifically directed to
recording changes to the headrest position. Id. i-f 643. When viewed in
context, the seat position prior to the operator changes is the position set by
the system for occupants with the previously determined height. See Breed
i-fi-1637---639, 642---643. Nevertheless, the seat has control switches "that
permit[] the occupant to adjust the position of the seat if he or she is
dissatisfied with the position selected by the algorithm." Id. il 643.
Paragraphs 642 and 643 simply explain how the system handles those
changes by placing them into a second table to be used the next time
someone with the same height occupies the seat. It, however, does not
suggest using the identified changes to the cockpit configuration to verifY the
occupant's identity. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the evidence
cited by the Examiner does not establish it was known to perform the
verification step, as recited by claims 1 and 11.
We now tum to the step of calculating theoretical cockpit
configuration parameters using an anthropometric model and inverse
kinematic calculations, as recited by claims 11 and 15. Finding again Sadler
does not disclose the above step, the Examiner identifies paragraphs 177,
6
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
197, 204, 385, 522, and 647 from Breed as evidence the recited verification
step was known. Final Act. 5---6, 8. The Examiner explains "Breed teaches
comparisons of measured heights and weights to stored possibilities of
driver morphologies, and offering a choice of different seat alignments based
on these morphologies (i-f 647)." Final Act. 2.
Also, responding to Appellants' assertion Breed does not disclose
using an inverse kinematic calculation to calculate theoretical cockpit
configurations, the Examiner disagrees "based on the Random House
Dictionary definition of kinematics as 'the branch of mechanics that deals
with pure motion, without reference to the masses or forces involved in it."'
Ans. 2. The Examiner then finds,
Breed teaches sensors that measure vehicle speed at i1522. Breed
additionally teaches high speed motion tracking of a vehicle
occupant at i-f 123. Breed also teaches measuring the effects of
vehicle speed on voice recognition systems at i1 492.
Ans. 2. Similarly, the Examiner also "disagrees based on the Random
House Dictionary definition of anthropometric as based on 'the
measurement of the size and proportions of the human body."' Id. at 3. The
Examiner goes on to find,
Sadler teaches measuring human properties, such as optical path-
length differences, to identify particular occupants of a vehicle at
i1 21. In addition, Breed teaches the use of height sensors within
the vehicle at i1612-613, and other height measurements at i1632-
633.
Id. It is not clear from the Examiner's analysis, however, what significance
was placed on those dictionary definitions or how they shaped the
Examiner's understanding of the scope of claims 11 and 15. Moreover, the
Examiner does not explain why or how the cited paragraphs demonstrate it
was obvious to use the information gathered by the various sensors disclosed
7
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
in the manner claimed by claims 11 and 15 -i.e., to calculate theoretical
cockpit configuration parameters using an anthropometric model and inverse
kinematic calculations.
Appellants "submit[] that Breed does not teach using inverse
kinematic calculations for calculating theoretical cockpit configuration[s]."
Appeal Br. 16, 20. To the contrary, Appellants assert "Breed describes the
use of a lookup table, which is clearly not the same as an inverse kinematic
calculation." Id. at 17. Moreover, "Sadler's disclosure is directed to driver
identification via detailed image analysis of a skin patch - and is in no way
related to ... calculating theoretical cockpit configuration parameters using
an anthropometric model and inverse kinematic calculations." Id.
In addition, Appellants disagree with the Examiner's position that
"inverse kinematics" is simply a branch of mechanics that deals with pure
motion, without reference to the masses or forces involved in it. Reply Br.
2. In the Specification, Appellants reference Application Serial No.
12/868,388 (US 2012/0053794 Al, published Mar. 1, 2012 (hereinafter,
"Alcazar")), as providing an example of a system performing inverse
kinematic calculations to determine theoretical cockpit configurations.
Spec. i-f 29. In that Application, inverse kinematics is described as referring
to,
calculations where the length of the elements, and the positions
of one element end relative to another are known, and the
angles need to be calculated. For example, in positioning of the
lower extremities, the ball of the driver's foot has to reach the
pedals 24, and the driver's hip joint (adjusted for buttocks
thickness) has to be on the seat 14. Given this scenario, inverse
kinematics can be used to compute hip, knee and ankle angles.
8
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
Alcazar if 41. In view of the above, we agree with Appellants that "inverse
kinematics" is more reasonably understood by a skilled artisan as referring
to "the use of kinematic equations to determine the joint parameters that
provide a desired position of an object." Reply Br. 2.
The information cited by the Examiner from Breed clearly establishes
it was known to include sensors within a vehicle to gather data about the
occupant(s) and the vehicle's operation. Briefly, paragraph 123 describes a
system for monitoring motion; paragraph 177 describes a vehicle interior
identification and monitoring system to gather information about the cockpit
such as, distance measurements and mapping of the components of the
passenger compartment and/or the location of the driver's eyes; paragraph
197 describes a system for monitoring driver behavior to assist with airbag
deployment and/or to determine whether the driver is alert; paragraph 204
describes a system, which can be trained, to identifying whether an occupant
is an authorized operator using images and a pattern recognition algorithm;
paragraph 385 describes a system for controlling a component of a vehicle
based on weight and movement information gathered for the occupant;
paragraph 492 describes an optical-based system to gather information about
an occupant's eyes (e.g., to detect drowsiness), as well as, to gather
information about an occupant's mouth movement (i.e., "read lips") to
enable voice commands for controlling components; paragraph 522
describes a system for detecting operation conditions of the vehicle;
paragraphs 612---613 describe utilizing the information gathered about an
occupant's height, weight and movement to improve the deployment of
airbags; and paragraph 64 7 describes a system that can automatically vary
the seat configuration parameters over a period of time based, at least in part,
9
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
on the occupant's form (i.e., height and weight). See Breed iii! 123, 177,
197, 204, 385, 492, 522, 612-613, and 647. Nevertheless, absent from each
of the above paragraphs is any discussion about using the information
gathered to perform calculations using kinematic equations to determine the
joint parameters that provide a desired position of an object within the
cockpit relative to an occupant to determine the theoretical cockpit
configuration parameters for the identified occupant. The Examiner,
moreover, does not explain how or why those paragraphs would inform a
skilled artisan, or evidence a skilled artisan already recognized, to use the
information for such a purpose.
Regarding Breed paragraphs 632---633, which relate to determining the
theoretical cockpit configuration parameters for the identified occupant of
the vehicle, the Examiner again does not explain how or why the use of a
lookup table would inform a skilled artisan, or evidence a skilled artisan
already recognized, to provide a system that calculates the theoretical
cockpit configuration parameters using an inverse kinematic calculation.
Briefly, paragraphs 632---633 describe a system for determining an
occupant's height and using that information to identify the occupant and
make automatic adjustments to their seat. Id. if 632-633. Breed explains,
Once the height of the occupant has been measured, another
algorithm in the microprocessor in control circuit 254 compares
the occupant's measured height with a table representing the
population as a whole and from this table, the appropriate
positions for the seat corresponding to the occupant's height is
selected. For example, if the occupant measured 33 inches from
the top of the seat bottom, this might correspond to an 85%
human, depending on the particular seat and statistical table of
human measurements.
10
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
Id. if 637 (emphases added). Further, Breed teaches that "[c]areful study of
each particular vehicle model provides the data for the table of the location
of the seat to properly position" the occupant within the cockpit. Id. if 638.
With the above context, we agree with Appellants that the tables of
Breed do not support the Examiner's finding Breed discloses "calculating
theoretical cockpit configuration parameters using an anthropometric model
and inverse kinematic calculations," as required by claims 11 and 15. To the
contrary, rather than performing the step of calculating a theoretical cockpit
configuration for each identified occupant using inverse kinematic
calculations, Breed appears to teach utilizing a table populated with known
predetermined values representing the population as a whole and the
appropriate positions for the seat corresponding to the occupant's height,
based on "careful study" of each model of vehicle. The only apparent
calculations for determining the theoretical cockpit parameters is to
determine the ratio of the occupant's height to the statistical average and
applying that ratio to the predetermined table values for each configurable
parameter- i.e., Breed does not use kinematic equations to determine the
joint parameters that provide a desired position of an object within the
cockpit relative to an identified occupant to determine the theoretical cockpit
configuration parameters for that occupant. See id. iii! 637---638. Therefore,
we agree with Appellants that the evidence cited by the Examiner does not
establish it was known to perform the step of calculating theoretical cockpit
configuration parameters using an anthropometric model and inverse
kinematic calculations, as recited by claims 11 and 15.
As a result, because a preponderance of the evidence does not support
the Examiner's finding Breed discloses either (1) the verification step, or (2)
11
Appeal2014-002790
Application 12/868,565
the step of calculating theoretical cockpit configuration parameters using an
anthropometric model and inverse kinematic calculations, and because the
Examiner has not articulated a reason with a rational underpinning
demonstrating those elements would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at
the time of the invention, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 15.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16--20
For each of the dependent claims, the Examiner does not cure the
deficiencies identified above for each of the respective independent claims.
As a result, we also do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 2, 4--10, 12-14, and 16-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sadler and Breed is reversed.
REVERSED
12