Ex Parte SHAH et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 5, 2019

14804067 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/804,067 07/20/2015
28395 7590 06/07/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jitendra SHAH
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.
83548453 4744
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JITENDRA SHAH, CHRISTIAN RESS, and
STEFAN WOLTER
Appeal 2018-008298
Application 14/804,067
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action (July 21, 2017) ("Final Act.") rejecting
claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons explained below, we are not informed of error in the
rejection. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, identified in
the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008298
Application 14/804,067
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter "relates to a method and a device for
assisting the process of collecting goods." Spec. ,i 2.2 As described in the
Specification:
The method utilizes a wireless data transmission between
the user ( the person or persons acquiring the purchased goods)
and the provider's business, an access code for opening ( and
optionally also closing) a compartment (such as a trunk) of the
vehicle is generated by the provider in order to permit the
delivery person to load the purchased goods into the vehicle
independently of any further action by the user.
Spec. ,i 15.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
selected limitations emphasized, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A method comprising:
responsive to receiving an order identifying goods and an
autonomous automotive vehicle scheduled to collect the goods,
transmitting a code, linking the order with an identifier of the
vehicle, to a communication device such that the device stores
the code; and
responsive to input at the device matching the code stored
by the device, transmitting the code from the device to the vehicle
such that the vehicle unlocks.
Rejection
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Zhou (US 2014/0254896 Al, published Sept. 11,
2014 ). Final Act. 3-6.
2 Citations to the Specification are to the Substitute Specification filed
October 5, 2015.
2
Appeal 2018-008298
Application 14/804,067
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues all claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 3-4. We
select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Zhou teaches receiving an
order identifying goods and, in response to the order, generating a code and
transmitting the code. Final Act. 3 (citing Zhou abstract, Figs. 1, 3, 5). The
Examiner finds Zhou does not expressly disclose information identifying the
vehicle, but that "it has been well-known that an operating vehicle has a VIN
[(Vehicle Identification Number)] for managing/controlling purpose - or a
cart that is separately recognizable ( e.g., currently using/related) by a
customer/user via computer's code ( e.g., identification data for a drone may
include finger print data/password/VIN, and goods on screen)." Id. at 3-4
( citing Zhou Fig. 5, ,-J,-J 44, 59, claim 5). The Examiner finds Zhou also
teaches matching code/fingerprint to allow access, and that Zhou teaches the
claimed unlocking. Id. at 4 ( citing Zhou ,-J,-J 64, 97-98, claims 5, 21 ). The
Examiner finds Zhou does not teach loading goods into the vehicle after
receipt of the code by the vehicle has caused unlocking, 3 but that Zhou
"disclose[ s] similar language for that claimed purpose (i.e., to control access
into a vehicle's compartment." Id. (citing Zhou abstract, ,-J 37). The
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art, in implementing Zhou, would
have had reason to identify the vehicle and load the goods into the vehicle
3 Claim 1 does not recite "loading the goods into the vehicle," but recites
that the order identifies goods "and an autonomous automotive vehicle
scheduled to collect the goods."
3
Appeal 2018-008298
Application 14/804,067
after receipt by the vehicle of the code has caused it to unlock, "because a
necessity of tracking/matching a goods to a vehicle have been practiced, and
there are certain programming codes to guarantee that step is happening."
Id.
Appellant argues Zhou suggests a remote delivery vehicle in which
access to the vehicle is permitted responsive to authorized data being input
to the vehicle, and that data about goods being delivered or messages for
parties in the delivery chain may also be sent to the vehicle, but does not
teach the remaining limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 3 ( citing Zhou ,i,i 37,
44-45). Appellant contends "the mere fact a vehicle may have an identifier
does not suggest that a code used to access the vehicle should link the
identifier with an order identifying goods carried by the vehicle." Id.
Appellant also questions whether "one familiar with Zhou [ would]
contemplate sending such a code to a device other than the vehicle" because
"[t]o the extent Zhou discusses access to its vehicle via authorized data, such
data is input directly to the vehicle." Id.; see Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments do not inform us of error in the rejection. We
note, in particular, that paragraph 98 of Zhou, which the Examiner cites for
the claimed unlocking of the vehicle, Final Act. 4, expressly describes
presenting a cryptographic key to Zhou's robot 602 "by entering it via the
external device 606," Zhou ,i 98. External device 606 "can include a
computing device, such as a smartphone, a tablet PC, and so forth." Id. ,i 91.
Although the external device may be held by robot 602, it is separate from
the vehicle. See id.; Fig. 6. Thus, Appellant is incorrect that Zhou discusses
access to the vehicle only by inputting authorization data directly to the
vehicle.
4
Appeal 2018-008298
Application 14/804,067
As to the code also linking the order with an identifier of the vehicle,
we agree with the Examiner that this limitation is an obvious modification of
Zhou, see Final Act. 4 (referring to "a necessity of tracking/matching ...
goods to a vehicle"), and note that this limitation is also implied by the
teachings of Zhou. Zhou refers to checking whether the cryptographic key
entered into external device 606 "corresponds to the one associated with the
delivery" that is being carried by a particular vehicle. Zhou ,i 98. Thus, the
code is associated with an order, and also with the particular vehicle
delivering the goods, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood to have a specific vehicle identifier. We note that although
paragraph 98, for example, describes authorization for completing delivery
of goods, similar authorization procedures are described with relation to
picking up goods to be delivered. See Zhou ,i 71. We agree with the
Examiner that the "necessity of tracking/matching ... goods to a vehicle"
provides sufficient reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the
authorization procedures described in paragraph 98 when collecting the
goods with an automotive vehicle as taught, for example, in paragraph 71 of
Zhou.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zhou. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20, which are
rejected on the same ground and not argued separately.
5
Appeal 2018-008298
Application 14/804,067
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and
17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6