Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2022

2021003840 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2022)

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. 16/087,233 09/21/2018 Harpreetsingh BANVAIT 84053376 (FGTL-06801) 5038 130881 7590 01/13/2022 Stevens Law Group - FGTL 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 226 San Jose, CA 95110 EXAMINER OHMAN, TIFFANY P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2022 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): uspto@stevenslawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HARPREETSINGH BANVAIT, JINESH J. JAIN, and SURJYA SARATHI RAY ____________ Appeal 2021-003840 Application 16/087,233 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Oct. 27, 2020, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1-3, 10-13, 15-18, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 1, 2021, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 4-9, 14, and 19 are canceled. Appeal Br. 11-13 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003840 Application 16/087,233 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM IN PART. INVENTION Appellant’s invention “relates to performing obstacle avoidance in autonomous vehicles.” Spec. para. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 11 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 11. A method comprising: receiving, by a V2V communication device statically mounted adjacent a roadway, a message indicating that an accident has occurred, the message being received using a cellular communication protocol; evaluating, by the V2V communication device, whether adjacent vehicles are wirelessly connected to the V2V communication device; and forwarding, by the V2V communication device, the message to the adjacent vehicles using a V2V communication protocol[.] Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.3 II. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. 3 The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 11-13, 15-18, and 20 has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 4; Final Act. 6-9. Appeal 2021-003840 Application 16/087,233 3 III. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen. IV. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wieskamp. V. The Examiner rejects claims 12, 13, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Ricci. VI. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Wieskamp, and Johnson. VII. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Wieskamp, and Lei. ANALYSIS Rejections I, II, IV, and VI Appellant has not addressed the rejections of claims 1-3 and 10. See Appeal Br. 4 (“The rejection of Claims 11-13, 15-18, and 20 is being appealed.”). Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter; of claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite; of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wieskamp; and of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Wieskamp, and Johnson. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection). Appeal 2021-003840 Application 16/087,233 4 Rejection III The Examiner finds that Chen fully discloses the method of independent claim 11. Final Act. 10 (citing Chen, paras. 10, 11, Figs. 1, 4). In particular, the Examiner finds that Chen’s vehicle mounted system 3 constitutes the claimed “statically mounted V2V communication device, because it is mounted to a vehicle, and the vehicle is a crashed vehicle that is static.” Examiner’s Answer (dated Apr. 2, 2021, hereinafter “Ans.”) 5 (citing Chen, para. 10, Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, because Chen’s vehicle mounted system 3 co-ops a nearby cellular device and communicates with nearby vehicles, Chen discloses the “evaluating” and “forwarding” steps of claim 11. Id. at 5-6 (citing Chen, para. 80, Fig. 1). Chen discloses a method for notifying emergency responders of an accident of vehicle 2 using vehicle-mounted system 3 to detect via sensors the crash of vehicle 2 and to search and detect a Bluetooth-enabled wireless telephone 6, 9 within a range of vehicle 2. See Chen, para. 10, Fig. 1. Chen further discloses co-opting Bluetooth-enabled wireless telephone 6, 9 using short-range communication links 4, 7 to make a long-range communication 10, 11 to a regional cellular tower 12. See Chen, para. 11, Fig. 1. As such, because Chen’s vehicle-mounted system 3 uses sensors to detect the crash of vehicle 2, we agree with Appellant that Chen fails to disclose the “receiving” step of independent claim 11. See Reply Brief (filed June 1, 2021, hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 2. In particular, as Chen’s vehicle- mounted system 3 has already detected the crash of vehicle 2 via sensors, it would not be reasonable for a skilled artisan to conclude that Chen’s vehicle mounted system 3 would also receive “a message indicating that an accident has occurred,” as per claim 11. Moreover, it is not clear from the Appeal 2021-003840 Application 16/087,233 5 Examiner’s rejection from which element in Chen’s system would vehicle- mounted system 3 receive “a message indicating that an accident has occurred . . . using a cellular communication protocol,” as per claim 11. The Examiner does not adequately explain how Chen’s vehicle-mounted system 3 can both detect the crash of vehicle 2 using sensors and “receiv[e] . . . a message indicating that an accident has occurred . . . using a cellular communication protocol.” Furthermore, interpreting the sensors of Chen’s vehicle 2 as communicating with vehicle-mounted system 3 using a cellular communication protocol, as per the “receiving” step of claim 11, would require speculation. See Reply Br. 2. Patentability determinations “should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 464 F. 3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Chen, and we could not find any portion, that would support such a reading of Chen. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Chen fails to disclose the “receiving” step of independent claim 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of independent claim 11, and its dependent claims 15 and 16, as anticipated by Chen. Rejections V and VII The Examiner’s use of the Ricci, Wieskamp, and Lei disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Chen discussed supra. See Final Act. 14-17. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above in Rejection III, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 12, 13, 17, and 18 Appeal 2021-003840 Application 16/087,233 6 as unpatentable over Chen and Ricci and of claim 20 as unpatentable over Chen, Wieskamp, and Lei.4 CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3 101 Eligibility 1-3 1-3, 10 112(b) Indefiniteness 1-3, 10 11, 15, 16 102(a)(1) Chen 11, 15, 16 1-3 103(a) Chen, Wieskamp 1-3 12, 13, 17, 18 103(a) Chen, Ricci 12, 13, 17, 18 10 103(a) Chen, Wieskamp, Johnson 10 20 103(a) Chen, Wieskamp, Lei 20 Overall outcome 1-3, 10 11-13, 15-18, 20 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). AFFIRMED IN PART 4 With respect to the rejection of claim 20 over the combined teachings of Chen, Wieskamp, and Lei, we note that the rejection does not employ the teachings of Wieskamp in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 16, 17.