Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2021

2021002096 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2021)

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.
15/881,999 01/29/2018 Kun Deng 83926873(65080-2809) 1053
113140 7590 10/26/2021
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
VORCE, AMELIA J.I.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2021 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KUN DENG, NANJUN LIU, FANGJUN JIANG,
GARY SONG, and ALEX MAURICE MILLER

Appeal 2021-002096
Application 15/881,999
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–14, and 17–23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification relates to collision mitigation between a host
vehicle and target vehicles. Spec. ¶1.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC, as the sole real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-002096
Application 15/881,999

2
The Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–14, and 17–23 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No
other claims are pending. Id.; see also Appeal Br. 16–19. Of the pending
claims, claims 1, 9, and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 16–19. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A system, comprising a computer including a
processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions
executable by the processor to:
determine respective threat numbers for each of a plurality
of targets;
determine whether a host vehicle is in a turn-across path
intersection in which a projected path of the host vehicle turns
across a projected path of at least one of the targets based on a
plurality of indicators, each indicator based on at least one of an
angular acceleration of the host vehicle, an angular speed of the
host vehicle, a curvature of a trajectory of the host vehicle, or a
respective heading angle between each target and a projected
path of the host vehicle, each indicator identifying an intersection
other than the turn-across path intersection; and
actuate a component in the host vehicle based on the threat
numbers upon determining, based on the plurality of indicators,
that the host vehicle is in the turn-across path intersection.
Id. at 16.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The following rejections are before us:
1. claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–14, and 17–23, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b),
as indefinite (Final Act. 5);
2. claim 12, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), as being in improper
dependent form (id. at 7);
Appeal 2021-002096
Application 15/881,999

3
3. claims 1, 5–7, 9, 12–14, and 17–19, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1), as anticipated by Al-Stouhi2 (id.);
4. claims 21 and 22, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over
Al-Stouhi and Baba3 (id. at 16);
5. claim 23, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Al-
Stouhi, Baba, and Manges4 (id. at 20);
6. claim 2, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Al-Stouhi,
Baba, and Tsunekawa5 (id. at 22); and
7. claims 8 and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over
Al-Stouhi and Akiyama6 (id. at 25).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 (Indefiniteness)
A claim is indefinite if, after applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, the metes and bounds of a claim
are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is
unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam);
see also Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5
(PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach for assessing
indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard).
The Examiner rejected all pending claims as indefinite upon
determining, among other things, that each of independent claims 1, 9, and
13 contains at least two unclear limitations.

2 US 2016/0368492 A1, published Dec. 22, 2016 (“Al-Stouhi”).
3 US 2018/0182247 A1, published June 28, 2018 (“Baba”).
4 US 2007/0239408 A1, published Oct. 11, 2007 (“Manges”).
5 US 2011/0264302 A1, published Oct. 27, 2011 (“Tsunekawa”).
6 WO 2017 /179391 A1, published Oct. 19, 2017 (“Akiyama”).
Appeal 2021-002096
Application 15/881,999

4
First, the Examiner determined that the recitation of a “heading angle
between each target and a projected path of the host vehicle,” common to all
three independent claims, was unclear. Final Act. 5. Specifically, the
Examiner noted that the claims previously recite “a projected path” and it is
thus unclear if the later recitation of “a projected path” is the same path or
may be different. Id. at 5–6.
Second, the Examiner determined that the recitation of “each indicator
identifying an intersection other than the turn-across path intersection,”
common to all three independent claims, also was unclear. Id. at 6. The
Examiner explained:
[I]t is unclear how the identification of an intersection other than
the turn-across intersection relates to the rest of the claims. This
limitation appears out of place, as the recitations which precede
and follow it relate to the turn-across path intersection, not the
other than the turn-across path intersection.
Id.
Appellant does not argue against the indefiniteness rejection of any
claim. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection.7 See Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to
contest a ground of rejection to the Board . . . the PTO may affirm the
rejection of the group of claims that the examiner rejected on that ground
without considering the merits of those rejections.”).

7 We additionally note that the independent claims may be further indefinite
in that they recite “determin[ing] whether a host vehicle is in a turn-across
path intersection in which a projected path of the host vehicle turns across a
projected path of at least one of the targets” (emphasis added). Specifically,
it is unclear how to reconcile the recitation that the “host vehicle is in a turn-
across path intersection” if said intersection is in a location where the host
vehicle is “projected” to go.
Appeal 2021-002096
Application 15/881,999

5
Rejection 2 (Improper Dependent Form)
The Examiner rejected claim 12 because it depends from claim 11,
which is cancelled. Final Act. 7; see also 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“a claim in
dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth”).
Appellant does not argue against this rejection. Accordingly, we summarily
affirm the rejection.
Rejections 3–7 (Prior Art Rejections)
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–14, and 17–23 as
anticipated by, or unpatentable over, prior art. The indefinite scope of the
claims, however, precludes any meaningful review of the prior art rejections.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant concedes that the Appeal Brief fails to
argue the claims are definite but characterizes the rejection as involving only
typographical errors in need of correction. See Reply Br. 4 (“With respect to
the statement in the Examiner’s Answer (page 3) that the Appeal Brief did
not address rejections under § 112, Appellant believes that the typographical
errors leading to these rejections are best resolved outside of the present
Appeal.”). Appellant has not identified the typographical errors, let alone
the corrections, that would purportedly clarify the scope of the claims, not
even belatedly in its Reply Brief. As such, their scope remains indefinite
such that meaningful review of the prior art rejections is precluded.
Consequently, we reverse these rejections. See In re Aoyama, 656
F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA
1962).
Appeal 2021-002096
Application 15/881,999

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–9,
12–14,
17–23
112 Indefiniteness 1, 2, 5–9,
12–14, 17–
23

12 112 Improper
dependency
12
1, 5–7, 9,
12–14,
17–19
102(a)(1) Al-Stouhi 1, 5–7, 9,
12–14, 17–
19
21, 22 103 Al-Stouhi, Baba 21, 22
23 103 Al-Stouhi, Baba,
Manges
23
2 103 Al-Stouhi, Baba,
Tsunekawa
2
8, 20 103 Al-Stouhi, Akiyama 8, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–9,
12–14, 17–
23

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)(1)(iv) (2019).
AFFIRMED