FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 21, 202015090688 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/090,688 04/05/2016 Devinder Singh KOCHHAR 83628187 3473 28395 7590 05/21/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER SMITH, ISAAC G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/21/2020 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 DEVINDER SINGH KOCHHAR and MICHAEL JAMES WHITENS Appeal 2019-006285 Application 15/090,688 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006285 Application 15/090,688 2 According to Appellant, the invention “relate[s] to a method and apparatus for predictive driver assistance.” Spec. ¶ 1. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A system comprising: a processor configured to: predict driver behavior based on a correlation between received context variable values and previously observed driver behavior; request confirmation that predicted behavior is intended by a driver; responsive to confirmation receipt, change an in-vehicle display to include a control usable to enact the predicted behavior. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2 The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1–11 and 13–20 under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Penilla3; and II. Claim 12 under U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Penilla and Nitz.4 ANALYSIS Rejection I—Anticipation rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–20 As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a system comprising a processor configured to “request confirmation that predicted behavior is intended by a driver; [and] responsive to 2 Although the Final Office Action includes rejections under §§ 101 and 112, the Examiner withdraws these rejections in the Answer. Final Action 7–17; Answer 3. 3 Penilla et al., US 2016/0080500 A1, published Mar. 17, 2016. 4 Nitz et al., US 2014/0052681 A1, published Feb. 20, 2014. Appeal 2019-006285 Application 15/090,688 3 confirmation receipt, change an in-vehicle display to include a control usable to enact the predicted behavior.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner does not support adequately that Penilla discloses receiving confirmation that a driver intends a predicted behavior, and then changing a display to include a control usable to control that predicted behavior in response to that confirmation. In the Answer, the Examiner appears to rely on Penilla’s paragraph 15 to disclose displaying a control, in accordance with claim 1’s recitation. See Answer 4. In particular, according to the Examiner, “the action . . . [in paragraph 15 of] Penilla . . . of ‘setting customization of display applications on the screen of the vehicle’ performed in response to accepting an action recommendation clearly changes a display to include a ‘control’ as claimed.” Answer 4. As set forth above, claim 1 recites that “responsive to confirmation receipt [that a predicted behavior is intended by the driver], [a processor is configured to] change an in-vehicle display to include a control usable to enact the predicted behavior.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner does not support adequately that Penilla’s paragraph 15 discloses changing a display to include a control that is usable to enact a predicted behavior. See id. at 6–7. Instead, we agree with Appellant that this paragraph appears to disclose, at most, “a list of settings . . . that . . . [may] be changed,” rather than disclosing how a control is used to change the settings. Id. at 6. Although the Examiner also references Penilla’s paragraphs 11, 50, 51, and 55 in the Answer, none of these paragraphs, alone or Appeal 2019-006285 Application 15/090,688 4 together, discloses “responsive to confirmation receipt [that a predicted behavior is intended by the driver], [a processor is configured to] change an in-vehicle display to include a control usable to enact the predicted behavior.” Answer 4–11; Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1). For example, we agree with Appellant that, with respect to paragraph 55 of Penilla, even if one considers the presentation of the app icon to be an instance of presenting a control usable to enact predicted behavior (the launching of the app presumably being the predicted behavior), the presentation of the icon is not responsive to a request for confirmation as to whether or not the app icon should be presented in the first place. Instead, [this] paragraph . . . teaches that the example relates to analyzing historical actions to change configuration settings in a user profile. Reply Br. 6–7 (emphases added). Restated, Penilla’s paragraph 55, at most, discloses changing a display to present a control usable to enact a predicted behavior based on the driver’s historical actions, but not in response to any confirmation from the driver. We note the following explanation by the Examiner: The Examiner emphasizes to the Board that [c]laim 1 does not define what is meant by “usable,” and the act of a user viewing the display applications of Penilla . . . is equivalent to the user “using” the display applications, making the display applications “usable” within the scope of the claim by being displayed on the screen of the vehicle (for example, a user may use a map or any type of application displayed on a screen by simply viewing the screen). Furthermore, Penilla . . . teaches determining action recommendations based on a user history profile ([see Penilla ¶ 11]), and the claimed “behavior” may be interpreted as being the user’s wish to view or in some way interact with the customized display Appeal 2019-006285 Application 15/090,688 5 applications resulting from the action of “setting customization of display applications on the screen of the vehicle.” Therefore, a user may “enact” this “behavior” by simply viewing or interacting with the customized display applications resulting from accepting the action recommendation. Answer 5 (emphases omitted). We disagree with the Examiner, however. As set forth above, claim 1 recites that “responsive to confirmation receipt [that a predicted behavior is intended by the driver], [a processor is configured to] change an in-vehicle display to include a control usable to enact the predicted behavior.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). We do not agree with the Examiner that, for example, even if (using nomenclature from claim 1) Penilla’s processor receives confirmation that its prediction is correct that the driver intends to view a map, and the processor changes the display to show the map, this amounts to displaying a control that is usable to enact the predicted behavior of intending to view the map. Rather, with reference to Penilla, the Examiner describes a scenario in which a processor, responsive to confirmation receipt that a predicted behavior (of displaying map) is intended by the driver, changes the display to enact the predicted behavior (of displaying the map)—there is no changing of the display to include a control usable to enact the predicted behavior. That is, we determine that claim 1 requires something in addition to showing the map, as would occur in the Examiner’s scenario. Appeal 2019-006285 Application 15/090,688 6 Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 12 Claim 12 depends from independent claim 1. For the above reasons, we do not sustain claim 1’s anticipation rejection based on Penilla. The Examiner does not rely on Nitz to disclose anything that would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1’s rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12 based on Penilla and Nitz. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1–20. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1–11, 13–20 102(a)(1) Penilla 1–11, 13–20 12 103 Penilla, Nitz 12 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation