Nuro, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2022

2020006015 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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. 16/040,437 07/19/2018 David FERGUSON 1015-US.03 (51618-725.202 3207 163263 7590 02/23/2022 Nuro, Inc. (WSGR Matters) Attn. Peggy Su, Patent Team 1300 Terra Bella Ave. Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94043 EXAMINER HAILE, BENYAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2022 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): p_a_su@yahoo.com patents@nuro.ai psu@nuro.ai PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID FERGUSON, JIAJUN ZHU, COSIMO LEIPOLD, and PICHAYUT JIRAPINYO ____________________ Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, 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 50, 51, 53, and 54.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM−IN−PART.3 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 Nuro, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.) 2 Claims 1-49, 52, and 55-61 have been cancelled. (See Advisory Act. mailed April 2, 2020 (entering Amendment filed March 17, 2020).) 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 19, 2018, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed January 21, 2020, the Advisory Action (Advisory Act.) mailed April 2, 2020, the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to platforms for determining a real-time parking status for a plurality of parking locations, detecting traffic violations by a manned vehicle at a roadway location, and monitoring security of a physical location, using autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles. (Spec. ¶ 3, Title, Abstract.) Claim 50, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 50. A platform for determining a real-time manned vehicle status, the platform comprising: a) a plurality of vehicles, the plurality of vehicles configured to operate autonomously or semi-autonomously, each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles including (i) one or more sensors configured to collect a first sensed data corresponding to a location, and (ii) a communication device; and b) a processor configured to provide an application including (i) a database comprising the plurality of locations, (ii) a communication module receiving the first sensed data via the communication device, and (iii) a recognition module (1) applying an assessment algorithm to determine the real-time manned vehicle status at the location based at least on the first sensed data, and (2) transmitting the real-time manned vehicle status to the database. (Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims App.).) Br.”) filed May 20, 2020, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 22, 2020, and the Reply Brief filed August 19, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Sonnabend et al. US 2012/0062395 A1 Mar. 15, 2012 (“Sonnabend”) Roesner US 2012/0280836 A1 Nov. 8, 2012 (“Roesner”) REJECTIONS Claims 50, 51, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sonnabend.4 (Final Act. 4-6.) Claim 54 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sonnabend in view of Roesner. (Final Act. 7-8, 10.)5 ANALYSIS Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We review the appealed rejections of claims 50, 51, 53, and 54 for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s 4 The Examiner erroneously refers to Sonnabend as “Sannabend.” (See Final Act. 4.) 5 The Final Action includes additional rejections of claims 49, 55, and 56-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and of claims 1-19, 60, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 (see Final Act. 3-12). All these claims, however, have been cancelled pursuant to the Amendment filed March 17, 2020. (See Advisory Act. (entering Amendment filed March 17, 2020).) Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 4 rejections.”)). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error with respect to the rejections of claims 50 and 51. We are, however, persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error with respect to the rejections of claims 53 and 54. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 50 and 51 for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer, but reverse the rejections of claims 53 and 54. We add the following primarily for emphasis. § 102 Rejections of Claims 50 and 51 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Sonnabend discloses all the limitations of independent claim 50. (Appeal Br. 6-14; Reply Br. 2-6.) Specifically, Appellant contends Sonnabend does not disclose “a plurality of vehicles, the plurality of vehicles configured to operate autonomously or semi-autonomously,” as recited in claim 50. (Appeal Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-4.) Rather, Appellant argues, Sonnabend merely discloses land vehicles such as taxicabs, but “Sonnabend does not disclose any vehicle, or taxicab, that is configured to operate autonomously or semi-autonomously” and “does not appear to even contemplate that a taxicab can operate without a driver.” (Appeal Br. 8, 10; Reply Br. 3-4.) Appellant also argues Sonnabend does not disclose “a communication module [included in an application provided by a processor] receiving the first sensed data via the communication device [included in a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles],” as recited in claim 50. (Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-6.) More particularly, Appellant argues the “Examiner’s rejection of claim 50 argues that the communication device and the communication module of claim 50 are both equivalent to a system which receives data from Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 5 a standalone camera system as disclosed by Sonnabend,” however, “[s]uch a system cannot both send and receive data from itself.” (Reply Br. 6; see also Appeal Br. 13-14.) Appellant further argues Sonnabend does not disclose “a recognition module (1) applying an assessment algorithm to determine the real-time manned vehicle status at the location based at least on the first sensed data, and (2) transmitting the real-time manned vehicle status to the database,” as recited in claim 50. (Appeal Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 5.) We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings. (Final Act. 4, 6; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 3-6.) Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Sonnabend discloses the claimed “plurality of vehicles configured to operate autonomously or semi- autonomously,” because Sonnabend’s paragraph 28 “describes the characteristics of a vehicle that makes a vehicle to be considered as ‘configured to operate . . . semi-autonomously’, including automatic stability control, active handling, antilock brake, which are components of the vehicle that autonomously engage to help in the driving operation of the vehicle.” (Ans. 4 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 28, 160); see also Advisory Act. 2.) Appellant disagrees, arguing that “automatic stability control, active handling, antilock brake” are common features of vehicles, and do not “autonomously engage.” The automatic stability control does not cause a vehicle to operate autonomously or semi-autonomously. There is no reasonable suggestion that such features are included in any vehicle that is configured to operate autonomously or semi- autonomously. (Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br. 8-9.) Appellant further submits, “Sonnabend does not appear to even contemplate that a taxicab can operate Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 6 without a driver.” (Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added).) Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because claim 50 does not recite or require “vehicles” that are to be operable without a driver. Rather, claim 50 recites vehicles that may be “manned” and “configured to operate . . . semi- autonomously.” (Appeal Br. A-1 (claim 50) (emphases added).) Appellant’s Specification does not help Appellant’s arguments, either, because the Specification describes the claimed “vehicles configured to operate . . . semi-autonomously” in broad terms that do not require the vehicles to be operable without a driver (as Appellant argues, see Appeal Br. 10). Rather, Appellant’s Specification provides that a “manned vehicle comprises a car, a truck, a motorcycle, a van, a bus, a golf cart, a limousine, a utility vehicle, or any combination thereof,” and explains that the vehicle may be controlled directly by a user: [i]n some embodiments, the vehicle 101 is configured to enable human interaction and/or override by a user or a fleet operator 200. The vehicle 101 or the semi-autonomous vehicle 101 may be configured to allow for direct control of the processors, conveyors, or sensors therein, by a fleet operator. Such direct control may allow for the safe return of the vehicle 101 to a base station for repair. . . . In some embodiments the vehicle 604 may be operated on behalf of the service provider 605, wherein at least one of the central server 602 and the fleet management module 601 is operated by the service provider 605. In any one of the embodiments, the vehicle 604 is controlled directly by the user 603. In some embodiments, human interaction of the vehicle 604 may be required to address maintenance issues such as mechanical failure, electrical failure or a traffic accident. . . . [where] the user comprises a fleet manager; a sub-contracting vendor; a service provider; a customer; a business entity; an individual; or a third-party. Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 7 (Spec. ¶¶ 66, 80, 93, 128, 137, 145 (emphases added).) The broad language in the Specification that describes vehicles configured to operate semi- autonomously (see supra) allows a reading of the claimed vehicles configured to operate semi-autonomously on Sonnabend’s cars and taxis, which perform at least some of the driving functions automatically. (See Sonnabend ¶ 28 (describing vehicles equipped with “active handling, antilock brake, [and] automatic stability control” systems, which perform automatic driving functions that improve the vehicle’s steering and turning operations); Ans. 4 (citing Sonnabend ¶ 28); Advisory Act. 2.) We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Sonnabend discloses the claimed “plurality of vehicles, the plurality of vehicles configured to operate autonomously or semi-autonomously.” We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Sonnabend does not disclose the claimed “communication module receiving the first sensed data via the communication device,” as recited in claim 50. (Reply 5-6; Appeal Br. 12-14.) Appellant’s argument is that the Examiner’s rejection requires a single system to “both send and receive data from itself,” and “[c]laim 50 does not recite that a system receives first sensed data from itself.” (See Reply Br. 6; Appeal Br. 14.) Appellant’s argument, however, does not address the Examiner’s specific findings as to the teachings of Sonnabend that disclose the claimed communication device separate from the claimed communication module. (See Ans. 5-6.) In particular, the Examiner finds the claimed communication device included in a vehicle is taught by the communication framework of Sonnabend’s “standalone camera that can communicate with the mobile device’s collection application through wireless connection. . . . to send [the camera’s] sensed Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 8 images,” and the claimed communication module included in an application provided by a processor is taught by Sonnabend’s mobile device that receives the camera’s sensed parking images. (Ans. 5-6 (citing Sonnabend ¶ 144, claim 13); Final Act. 4, 6.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings, which are supported by Sonnabend. In particular, Sonnabend explains that “an independent, standalone camera,” which may be “a standalone vehicle mounted camera,” “is located in a car and records parking signs” and “open parking spots” automatically as the driver drives around. (See Sonnabend ¶¶ 144, 152.) The camera then transmits the data to a mobile device using a “wireless protocol,” such that the data reaches a network cloud database (of Sonnabend’s parking information collection system) “via the mobile device’s wireless communication functionality.” (See Sonnabend ¶¶ 118, 120, 141, 143-144, 152; Ans. 5-6; Final Act. 4, 6.) We therefore agree with the Examiner that Sonnabend’s standalone vehicle mounted camera, which connects wirelessly to the mobile device, discloses the claimed “communication device” (included in a vehicle), and Sonnabend’s mobile device receiving the camera’s images discloses the claimed “communication module” (included in an application provided by a processor). (Ans. 5-6; Final Act. 4, 6.) Appellant objects to the Examiner’s mapping of Sonnabend’s camera and mobile device to the claimed communication device and module, because “a standalone camera and a personal mobile device of Sonnabend are connected and, thus, a single system” and “[s]uch a system cannot both send and receive data from itself.” (Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 13-14.) Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because neither claim 50 nor Appellant’s Specification defines a “single system” as a collection of elements that are Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 9 “connected” (as Appellant argues, see Reply Br. 6). Moreover, claim 50 does not preclude the “communication device” and the “communication module” from being connectable or connected to each other (e.g., wirelessly, as in Sonnabend paragraph 144). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Sonnabend discloses the claimed “communication module receiving the first sensed data via the communication device,” as recited in claim 50. Appellant’s arguments regarding the claimed “recognition module” are also unpersuasive for the following reasons. Appellant argues paragraphs 118, 152, and 209 of Sonnabend do not disclose transmitting a real-time parking status to a database, and applying an assessment algorithm to determine a real-time status prior to transmitting the real-time status to a database. (Appeal Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 5.) Appellant’s arguments, however, have not addressed the entirety of the Examiner’s findings with respect to Sonnabend’s paragraphs 28, 87, 109, 111, and 152. (See Advisory Act. 2 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 28, 109, 111, 152); Final Act. 4, 6 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 87, 119, 120, 152); Ans. 5 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 87, 109, 111, 118-120, 0152).) In particular, the Examiner finds Sonnabend discloses [at] [0109] a mobile device utilizing a camera to capture and record location of parking signs, vacant parking spots, and recently vacant parking spots, and [0152] employs object recognition and an artificial intelligence algorithm to recognize open parking spot and assigns location coordinates to the parking spot and synchronizes the information to a parking information database; wherein [0118] the data upload occurs continuously. The parking information is processed and then uploaded continuously to the database. Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 10 (Ans. 5 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 87, 109, 111, 118-120, 0152); see also Advisory Act. 2 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 28, 109, 111, 152).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings, which are supported by the disclosure in Sonnabend. In particular, Sonnabend discloses the parking spot information system includes functionality (the claimed “recognition module”) that (i) determines “the fact that the consumer has moved” which “can indicate that a new open parking spot has just become available,” (ii) uses vehicle information “to indicate the location and status of the vehicle, and upload such information to the central parking database, such as information about when a vehicle occupies or vacates a parking spot,” and (iii) “can automatically upload this information [(that the user vacates the spot and leaves and departs)] to the server to update the parking spot database with the addition of the vacancy in real time.” (See Sonnabend ¶¶ 28, 87, 111, 152.) Thus, Sonnabend’s recognition module determines a real-time manned vehicle status at the location, as recited in claim 50. (Ans. 5; Advisory Act. 2; Final Act. 4.) Sonnabend’s recognition module functionality uses vehicle speed information, GPS location information, and “object recognition and an artificial intelligence algorithm” applied to recorded image data to “recognize a parking sign or open parking spot” and generally determine the existence of “recently vacated parking spots”- thereby disclosing that the recognition module applies an assessment algorithm to determine a real-time manned vehicle status at the location based on sensed data, as recited in claim 50. (See Sonnabend ¶¶ 28, 109, 111, 118, 152; Ans. 5; Advisory Act. 2; Final Act. 4.) Sonnabend further discloses that the recognition module transmits the determined real-time manned vehicle status at the location (e.g., the status of Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 11 a vehicle vacating a parking spot), to a database (as recited in claim 50) because Sonnabend’s “parking spot information system . . . uploads the relevant parking data to the server to the data collection parking information database,” “update[s] the parking spot database with the addition of the vacancy in real time,” and “synchronizes the information to the network cloud.” (See Sonnabend ¶¶ 28, 87, 118, 152; Ans. 5 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 87, 109, 111, 118-120, 152); Advisory Act. 2 (citing Sonnabend ¶¶ 28, 109, 111, 152).) We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Sonnabend discloses the claimed “recognition module” for “applying an assessment algorithm to determine the real-time manned vehicle status at the location based at least on the first sensed data, and (2) transmitting the real-time manned vehicle status to the database,” as recited in claim 50. (Ans. 5; Advisory Act. 2.) Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 50. We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 51, for which Appellant submits arguments similar to those submitted for claim 50. (See Appeal Br. 15.) In particular, Appellant argues paragraphs 152 and 209 of Sonnabend do not disclose “transmitting a real-time parking status [(which is the real-time manned vehicle status of claim 50)] to a database.” (Id.) As discussed supra with respect to claim 50, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s cited portions of Sonnabend do not disclose transmitting a real-time manned vehicle parking status to a database. Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 12 § 102 Rejection of Claim 53 and § 103 Rejection of Claim 54 Claim 53 depends from claim 50 and further recites that the platform is “configured to detect a violation,” wherein “the location is associated with at least one regulation” and “the application further comprises a violation detection module applying a violation assessment algorithm to detect the violation based at least on the location, the at least one regulation associated with the location, and one or more of: the first sensed data, and the real-time status of the location.” (Appeal Br. A-2 (claim 53).) The Examiner rejects claim 53 “with the same prior art and reasoning as to that of claim 2,” with the anticipation rejection of claim 2 reproducing the claim and appending a citation to paragraph 20 of Sonnabend. (See Final Act. 5-6.) Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 53 does not provide any “guidance as to which ‘elements’ of claim 53 are believed to correspond with which ‘elements’ of paragraph [0020] of Sonnabend,” such that “Applicants are forced to guess which features in the cited art the Examiner believed to disclose each of the claimed features.” (Appeal Br. 17.) Appellant further notes that the “Examiner appears to take the position that paragraph [0020] of Sonnabend discloses all of the features of claim 53” but “the cited paragraph of Sonnabend does not disclose each and every feature of claim 53” including “a violation detection module applying a violation assessment algorithm to detect the violation based at least on the location, the at least one regulation associated with the location, and one or more of: the first sensed data, and the real-time status of the location,” as claimed. (Id. at 17-18.) Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 13 We agree with Appellant. The cited portion of Sonnabend (i.e., paragraph 20) describes a “parking spot information system” that can provide information about city and residential parking rules, garage locations, current events that could disrupt parking, the existence of meters and price per time for meters, alerts about meter expiration, the ability to locate a parked car, and the ability to find an open spot. (See Sonnabend ¶ 20.) The description in Sonnabend’s paragraph 20 does not support the Examiner’s finding that this paragraph discloses a “violation detection module applying a violation assessment algorithm” to “detect the violation based at least on the location, the at least one regulation associated with the location, and one or more of: the first sensed data, and the real-time status of the location,” as recited in claim 53. (Appeal Br. 16-18.) Further, the Examiner has not responded to Appellant’s arguments in the Answer. As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of claim 53, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 53.6 The Examiner does not identify how the teachings of Roesner remedy the noted deficiency of claim 53, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 54 (depending from claim 53) for the same reasons. 6 While the Examiner’s current findings lack sufficient evidence to support the anticipation rejection of claim 53, in the event of any further prosecution, the Examiner may want to re-review Sonnabend to assess whether additional portions in Sonnabend describe the claimed “violation detection module applying a violation assessment algorithm to detect the violation” based on “the location, the at least one regulation associated with the location, and one or more of: the first sensed data, and the real-time status of the location,” as recited in claim 53. (See, e.g., Sonnabend ¶¶ 27, 79, 87, 93, 167, 173.) Appeal 2020-006015 Application 16/040,437 14 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s anticipation rejections of claims 50 and 51 are AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 53 is REVERSED. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 54 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 50, 51, 53 102(a)(1) Sonnabend 50, 51 53 54 103 Sonnabend, Roesner 54 Overall Outcome 50, 51 53, 54 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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) (2019). AFFIRMED−IN−PART