Hayes, Howard et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

15247018 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
15/247,018 08/25/2016 Howard Hayes 006591.01290 2814
71823 7590 10/31/2019
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 006591
71 SOUTH WACKER DR.
SUITE 3600
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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):
PTO-71823@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HOWARD HAYES and SURENDER KUMAR

Appeal 2019-003561
Application 15/247,018
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Allstate Insurance Company of Northbrook, Illinois. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003561
Application 15/247,018

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of activating and deactivating one or more
features of a fleet vehicle of a fleet comprising a plurality of
fleet vehicles, the method comprising:
determining, by a computing device comprising a
processor and memory, a driving route of the fleet vehicle of
the fleet comprising the plurality of fleet vehicles, the driving
route being from a starting location to a destination location;
receiving, by the computing device, from a global
positioning system in the fleet vehicle, route information of the
fleet vehicle indicating that the fleet vehicle is no longer at the
starting location and is along the driving route;
determining, by the computing device, that a feature of
the fleet vehicle is deactivated;
and
after receiving the route information of the fleet vehicle
and determining that the feature of the fleet vehicle is
deactivated, causing, by the computing device, activation of the
feature of the fleet vehicle based on determining that the fleet
vehicle is along the driving route.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ibanez-Guzman et al.
(“Ibanez-Guzman”)
US 2014/0358353 A1 Dec. 4, 2014
Bogovich et al.
(“Bogovich”)
US 2016/0189308 A1 June 30, 2016
Vij et al. (“Vij”) US 2017/0140293 A1 May 18, 2017
Be et al. (“Be”) US 2017/0267170 A1 Sept. 21, 2017

Appeal 2019-003561
Application 15/247,018

3
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
as being anticipated by Be.2
Claims 6–12 and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Be and Bogovich.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Be, Bogovich, and Vij.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Be and Ibanez-Guzman.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that Be fails to disclose “causing[, by the
computing device,] activation of the feature of the fleet vehicle based on
determining that the fleet vehicle is along the driving route,” as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 2–3; see Appeal Br. 10–11. The Appellant’s argument is
persuasive.
Based on the record before us, we determine that the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection is based on Be’s disclosure of vehicle-based
computing system that determines a route, which includes a start location
and a destination location, where the route includes a path through a geo-
fenced area; and the vehicle-based computing system activates a feature of a

2 Claim 3 is included in the statement of the ground of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Final Act. 3. However, a rejection of claim 3 is
lacking in the body of the rejection. Further, claim 3 is rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Id. at 9. Based on the reasoning provided for the rejection
of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 we determine that the inclusion of claim 3
for the rejection under § 102(a)(2) is a minor oversight. See id.
Appeal 2019-003561
Application 15/247,018

4
vehicle –– such as, activating a headlight –– when the vehicle enters a
boundary of a geo-fenced area. See Final Act. 2–4, Ans. 3–4. However, the
Examiner’s rejection does not explain, on the record, how Be discloses that
the vehicle-based computing system recognizes that a vehicle is on the
driving route.
The Appellant asserts that “determining a route is typically performed
before embarking on that route, while determining whether someone is along
that route is performed in real-time; the two are not inherently intertwined.”
Appeal Br. 11. In this regard, the Examiner’s rejection properly accounts
the former determination, but does not account for the latter determination.
Stated otherwise, the Examiner fails to adequately explain on the record how
Be discloses, explicitly or inherently, that the vehicle-based computing
system determines that the vehicle is on the driving route when the
activation of the feature of the vehicle occurs.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and 5 as being anticipated by Be. The
rejections of dependent claims 3 and 6–18, based on Be in combination with
Bogovich, Vij, or Ibanez-Guzman, are inadequately supported for the same
reason as discussed above. Each of the remaining rejections is not cured by
the additional findings and/or reasoning associated therewith. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 3 and 6–18.
Independent claim 19 recites, “[n]on-transitory computer-readable
media storing executable instructions that, when executed by at least one
processor, cause a system to . . . activate the at least one autonomous or
semiautonomous function of the fleet vehicle based on the fleet vehicle not
being along the driving route.” Appeal Br. 21, Claims App. The Appellant
Appeal 2019-003561
Application 15/247,018

5
argues that Be fails to teach the foregoing recitation. Id. at 13–14; Reply
Br. 3–4. For the rejection of claim 19, the Examiner explains that “if the
vehicle crosses into one of the geo-fenced areas that the route set to [sic] for
the vehicle to avoid would be an indication that the vehicle is no longer on
the route.” Final Act. 5 (citing Be ¶¶ 34, 38–40, 52). This explanation only
supports the position that the vehicle in the real-world may be located in area
that was programmed to be avoided. The Examiner, however, fails to
adequately explain on the record how Be’s vehicle-based computing system
includes executable instructions to account for a vehicle that is not along the
claimed driving route. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 19 as being anticipated by Be.
Independent claim 20 includes similar a recitation as the disputed
recitation of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 21–22, Claims App. The Examiner
rejects independent claim 20 on the same basis as claim 1. Final Act. 3. For
the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 20 as being anticipated by Be.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 19,
20
§ 102(a)(2) Be

1, 2, 4, 5, 19,
20
6–12, 14–18 § 103 Be, Bogovich 6–12, 14–18
13 § 103 Be, Bogovich, Vij 13
3 § 103 Be, Ibanez-Guzman 3
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED