Ex Parte Zeng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 7, 2014

11758187 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/758,187 06/05/2007 Shuqing Zeng GP-309168-RD-JMC 4015
65798 7590 04/07/2014
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/07/2014 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 SHUQING ZENG, JEREMY A. SALINGER, and
PRASANNA VIGNESH GANESAN
________________

Appeal 2012-002807
Application 11/758,187
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-002807
Application 11/758,187

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 5. “No claims have
been canceled, withdrawn or allowed.” App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to a rear cross-traffic
collision avoidance (RCTCA) system and, more particularly, to an RCTCA
system that determines whether cross-traffic may cause a collision threat,
and if so, take appropriate action.” Spec. para. [0001]. Independent claim 1
is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A system for providing rear cross-traffic collision
avoidance for a subject vehicle, said system comprising:
object detection sensors for detecting objects and
providing object sensor signals;
vehicle sensors for sensing vehicle turning and providing
vehicle sensor signals;
a switch configured to enable the cross-traffic collision
avoidance system;
an object tracking and classification processor responsive
to the object sensor signals, said tracking and classification
processor identifying and tracking objects that potentially may
interfere with the subject vehicle and providing target
identification and tracking signals;
a host vehicle path prediction processor responsive to the
vehicle sensor signals, said host vehicle path prediction
processor providing path curvature signals indicating the
curvature of a path of the subject vehicle as the subject vehicle
backs into cross-traffic;
a target selection processor responsive to the target
identification and tracking signals and the path curvature
Appeal 2012-002807
Application 11/758,187

3
signals, said target selection processor identifying potential
objects in the tracking and classification signals that may be in
a collision path with the subject vehicle, and providing potential
objects signals; and
a threat assessment processor responsive to the potential
objects signal and determining whether action should be taken
to avoid a collision with an object.

EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Ansaldi US 5,343,206 Aug. 30, 1994
Altan US 6,871,145 B2 Mar. 22, 2005
Danz US 7,385,486 B2 Jun. 10, 2008
Cong US 7,522,091 B2 Apr. 21, 2009

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danz and Ansaldi. Ans. 5.
2. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Danz, Ansaldi, and Altan. Ans. 14.
3. Claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Danz, Ansaldi, and Cong. Ans. 16.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-16, 19, and 20
as being unpatentable over Danz and Ansaldi
Appellants argue all three independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 12, and
19) together. App. Br. 12-14. We select claim 1 for review with claims 12
and 19 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011). Also, Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 2, 3,
5, 7, 8, 11, 13-16, and 20 and accordingly, these claims stand or fall with
claim 1.
Appeal 2012-002807
Application 11/758,187

4
Claim 1 includes the limitation of “a switch configured to enable the
cross-traffic collision avoidance system” and also the limitation of a
processor that provides “path curvature signals indicating the curvature of a
path” of the vehicle. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Danz for
disclosing the “switch” limitation and the Examiner relies on the teachings
of Ansaldi for disclosing the “curvature” limitation. Ans. 6-7. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to apply the path
prediction system of Ansaldi to the system of Danz since doing so would
improve the evaluation of likelihood of collision with an obstacle.” Ans. 7.
Regarding the “switch” limitation, the Examiner identifies where
Danz teaches that “signals may be sent to input circuit 8, e.g., switch-on or
switch-off signals or control signals from driver-operated actuators” and also
that “it is feasible for the driver of vehicle 1 to temporarily disable control
device 7 via a driver-operated actuator.” Ans. 6 referencing Danz 3:11-63.
Danz also discusses a particular driver-operated actuator in that Danz
teaches that “[a]ccording to the present invention, the device is enabled
when the vehicle’s ignition is switched on or when the reverse gear is
engaged while the ignition is switched on.” Danz 2:58-60, see also 3:24-26
and 3:65-67. Appellants contend that “the status of the ignition and the
position of the gear does not teach or suggest a switch configured to enable a
cross-traffic collision avoidance system as recited in claims 1, 12 and 19.”
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 3-4.
Appellants’ Specification provides no special definition of the claim
term “switch” other than that the system “includes an enabled state 112
where an enabling switch is on.” Spec. para. [0047], see also paras. [0048]-
[0053]. At Paragraph [0056], Appellants’ Specification states that “[t]he
Appeal 2012-002807
Application 11/758,187

5
driver sets the enable switch to off.” Appellants present no evidence that an
ignition switch, or more generally, a driver-operated actuator, is precluded
from satisfying the limitation of “a switch configured to enable the cross-
traffic collision avoidance system.” App. Br. 13. Accordingly, Appellants’
contention that Danz fails to disclose the claimed “switch” limitation is not
persuasive.
Regarding the “curvature” limitation, Ansaldi discusses problems with
prior art “straight-line” systems which “are subject to numerous errors,
particularly on bends.” Ansaldi 1:33-47. Ansaldi’s solution involves
“reconstructing the geometry of the road” and “determining the presumed
path of the vehicle on the basis of the road geometry.” Ansaldi Abstract,
2:35-38. More specifically, the Examiner references Ansaldi 7:13 to 8:41
which addresses Fig. 5 and discusses a path reconstruction that “will result
in the path indicated by dotted and dashed line 108” which is illustrated as
being curved. Ans. 7. Further, Ansaldi discusses the calculation of
“curvature C1a” which is the path necessary to maintain the vehicle in its
lane with respect to road changes. Ansaldi 7:51 to 8:16.
Appellants acknowledge Ansaldi’s reconstruction of “the geometry of
the road and its edges” and “determining the presumed path of the vehicle
based on the road geometry.” App. Br. 13. More specifically, Ansaldi
teaches that based on the reconstruction parameters employed, the
determination of a path such “that the vehicle remains parallel to the edges
of the road” is “‘plausible.’” Ansaldi 7:3-5. However, Appellants contend
that Ansaldi does not teach a vehicle path “as the subject vehicle backs into
cross-traffic as recited.” App. Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 5-6. The
Examiner did not rely on Ansaldi for backing into cross-traffic as Appellants
Appeal 2012-002807
Application 11/758,187

6
argue but instead, the Examiner relied on Danz for teaching the situation of
“when the vehicle is backed out of a parking space.” Ans. 5 referencing
Danz’s Abstract, see also 1:35-39.
Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-16, 19, and 20.
The rejection of claims 4 and 6
as being unpatentable over Danz, Ansaldi, and Altan
Dependent claims 4 and 6 both include the additional limitation of the
processor providing a warning if the object would have to brake “or” if the
object would have to swerve. “Appellants concede that Altan discusses
estimating a braking response of a driver, however, the braking threshold is
only part of the recited claims” and that Altan does not disclose whether the
object would have to “swerve.” App. Br. 15. Claims 4 and 6 are written in
the alternative and do not require both object braking and object swerving,
but only one of them. Because Appellants acknowledge the disclosure of
braking, Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 6.
The rejection of claims 9, 10, 17, and 18
as being unpatentable over Danz, Ansaldi, and Cong
Appellants present no arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 9, 10, 17, and 18. See App. Br., generally. Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 17, and 18.

Appeal 2012-002807
Application 11/758,187

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rvb