FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2020

15166921 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020)

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.
15/166,921 05/27/2016 Tom RAMAKERS 83645729 9159
28395 7590 05/01/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
WHALEN, MICHAEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2020 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 TOM RAMAKERS and NADJA WYSIETZKI
____________

Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method and device for supporting a
driving maneuver of a motor vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are
the independent claims on appeal. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal.
9. A system for a vehicle, comprising:
an ultrasonic sensor; and
a controller programmed to, responsive to input data not
provided by the ultrasonic sensor and indicative of surface
conditions for a road including roughness, tune a sensitivity
of the ultrasonic sensor via selecting among predetermined
setting values to configure the ultrasonic sensor according to
the roughness, and to issue commands based on output of the
ultrasonic sensor that result in maneuvering of the vehicle.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Faber US 2009/0249878 A1 Oct. 8, 2009
Tamari US 2013/0096731 A1 Apr. 18, 2013
Nakano US 2015/0268335 A1 Sept. 24, 2015
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–13, and 15–17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano and
Tamari.
Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
3
II. Claims 6, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Tamari, and
Faber.

OPINION
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 9, the Examiner finds Nakano discloses,
inter alia, a system for a vehicle comprising a controller programmed to,
responsive to input data not provided by an ultrasonic sensor, tune a
sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensor via selecting among predetermined setting
values to configure the ultrasonic sensor according to the input data, as
claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing Nakano ¶¶ 27, 38, Figs. 1, 3). In particular, the
Examiner finds Nakano discloses that the input data for tuning the ultrasonic
sensor is based on “environmental conditions.” Id.; Ans. 4 (citing Nakano
¶¶ 39–42, 47, 52, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6A, 6B). Indeed, Nakano discloses that the
sensitivity of the sound wave sensor (or ultrasonic sensor) is adjusted based
on, for example, air temperature and humidity, which is measured separately
from the ultrasonic sensor. See, e.g., Nakano ¶¶ 38, 40, 52.
The Examiner determines that Nakano fails to disclose that the input
data (i.e., the environmental conditions) is indicative of a rough road surface
condition, as required by claim 9, and the Examiner relies on Tamari for
teaching that “a bumpy road is an environmental condition that affects
sensors.” Ans. 4 (citing ¶¶ 22, 49). The Examiner reasons, inter alia, that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Nakano’s system to tune the sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensor based on
input data indicative of a rough road surface condition, as taught by Tamari,
Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
4
“[to allow] the system to properly compensate for the condition.” Final Act.
5; see also Ans. 4 (reasoning that “the system would be allowed to better
adapt to different environmental condition[s]”).
Appellant argues that “Tamari does not change the sensitivity of
sensors used to detect data based on whether the road is bumpy”; rather,
“Tamari changes the threshold values used for determining whether such
detected data is considered an ‘event’ or a ‘non-event.’” Appeal Br. 4
(citing, e.g., Tamari ¶ 58); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant submits that
because Tamari relies on sensing a bumpy road for the purpose of
classifying data (i.e., an event verses a non-event), “Tamari would not have
suggested within the context of Nakano that road roughness could be used as
a basis for adjusting the sensitivity of an ultrasonic sensor.” Appeal Br. 4;
see also id. at 5 (“the reason Tamari changes [the] ‘event/non-event’
threshold is because it does not change the sensitivity of its ultrasonic
sensor”).
Tamari discloses a drive event2 detector configured “to receive sensor
data from one or more onboard sensors and receive other information from
other external source(s) (e.g., satellite GPS location data . . . ) . . . [indicative
of] the geolocation of the vehicle.” Tamari ¶ 22; cf. Spec. ¶ 24 (“input data
21 comprise GPS data as well as navigation maps, which are suitable for
determination or assessment of the type of road or the condition of the
surface beneath the motor vehicle”). Tamari also discloses that geolocation

2 Tamari discloses that “[d]rive events may comprise accidents, near-
accidents, traffic law violations, company rule violations, driving
occurrences that increase the risk of accidents or otherwise causing harm to
the owner of the vehicle or driver’s employer” and may include “one or
more ‘basic’ drive operations that characterize basic or elementary moves of
driving.” Tamari ¶ 17.
Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
5
data may indicate a rough road surface condition, because Tamari discloses
that sensor data is compared against “geolocation based . . . bumpy road
profile.” Tamari ¶ 49 (“the determination that a drive event has occurred
can be made based on one or more predefined criteria such as one or more
sensor data values . . . match[ing] predefined profiles,” such as “geolocation
based . . . bumpy road profile”). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that Tamari discloses input data indicative
of a rough road surface condition, namely, geolocation data.
As argued by Appellant supra, Tamari discloses that “[i]n various
embodiments, the geolocation based criteria includes one or more
geolocation based onboard sensor threshold values for detecting an event
from driving data.” Id. ¶ 58 (emphasis added). As explained in Tamari, “a
deceleration threshold for detecting a collision drive event is set higher for a
bumpy road (e.g., a road filled with potholes), since a bumpy road would
cause more erratic decelerations than decelerations that occur when driving
on a well-paved neighborhood street.” Id. Thus, the event detector3 may be
adjusted to be less sensitive based on geolocation data (including the rough
condition of a road) by setting thresholds for sensor data. Id. (for example,
“a concrete vehicle at a job site with known rough or uneven roads . . .
mak[es] an event detector less sensitive”).
However, in addition, a preponderance of the evidence also supports a
finding that Tamari expressly discloses that the sensitivity of a sensor may
be adjusted based on geolocation data—input not provided by the sensor
and indicative of road conditions—specifically, in the context of road

3 In view of our analysis, it is unnecessary to consider whether the event
detector itself is a sensor.
Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
6
conditions representing a parking garage versus a highway. In particular,
Tamari discloses that
the geolocation based criteria are applied for capturing drive
events of the moving vehicle. In some embodiments, this
involves adjusting one or more sensor’s sensitivities based on
the geolocation of the vehicle. The idea is that driving in
different environments requires different maneuvering styles.
For example, it is normal for drivers to make a series of turns
interconnected by short stretches of driving straight in a parking
garage. If the drive event capture criteria are based on sharpness
and frequencies of turns and if the same criteria are used for
driving in the parking garage as for driving on the highway, the
drive event detector may over capture drive events when the
vehicle is traveling in the parking garage and under detect drive
events when the vehicle is traveling on the highway. To
overcome this difficulty, it may be important to adopt a different
set of criteria for different driving geolocations. In some
embodiments, instructions can be sent to onboard sensors to
adjust their sensitivity setting. . . . In various embodiments,
adjusting sensor sensitivity involves adjusting a detection
threshold of the sensor, adjusting a gain of the sensor, adjusting
an attenuation of the sensor, adjusting a bandwidth of a sensor,
or any other appropriate adjustment to a sensor.
Tamari ¶ 59 (emphasis added). Notably, Nakano discloses that the
sensitivity of the sound wave sensor (or ultrasonic sensor) may be “corrected
by correcting the amplification factor (gain).”4 Nakano ¶ 66.

4 The Specification appears to admit that it is known to at least select a
setting for an ultrasonic sensor based on road conditions, as the Background
section explains: “[i]n practice, for example a compromise regarding the
sensitivity adjustment of the ultrasonic sensors between the different
possible scenarios is selected,” wherein the possible scenarios include
“sensor-based detection of relatively small objects or obstacles, such as for
example poles or posts,” which necessitate “a relatively high sensitivity of
the ultrasonic sensors,” and also “travel[] over gravel or cobbles” which
necessitates “a relatively low sensitivity of the ultrasonic sensors.” Spec. ¶
4.
Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
7
Further, if not expressly disclosed, Tamari at least suggests to a
person of ordinary skill in the art that such geolocation data may include the
bumpiness or roughness of a road, because, as discussed supra, Tamari
discloses determining a bumpy road profile and also cites a job site as
examples of geolocation data indicative of a rough road surface condition.
“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply
the described invention or a preferred embodiment.” In re Applied
Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In sum, Appellant’s focus solely on Tamari’s teaching of adjusting the
thresholds for sensor data does not address Tamari’s teaching that the
sensitivity of the sensors may be adjusted based on geolocation data. Thus,
Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings
and reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10–13, and 15–17 apart from the arguments presented
for claim 9. Thus, for essentially the same reasons stated supra, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10–13, and 15–17.
Rejection II
Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 6, 14, and 18 apart from the arguments presented for claim 9.
Thus, for essentially the same reasons stated supra, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 14, and 18.

Appeal 2019-006082
Application 15/166,921
8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
8–13, 15–
17
103 Nakano, Tamari

1, 2, 4, 5,
8–13, 15–
17

6, 14, 18 103 Nakano, Tamari,
Faber
6, 14, 18
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6,
8–18

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