Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

15052495 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
15/052,495 02/24/2016 Rajiv Dayal 22562-1787/
TOY2015-406 PA
6238
96411 7590 09/29/2020
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
EXAMINER
PARSLEY, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
CincyPAIR@dinsmore.com
elise.merkel@dinsmore.com
jennifer.baker@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJIV DAYAL and FREDRICK W. MAU II
Appeal 2020-000535
Application 15/052,495
Technology Center 3600
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JILL D. HILL, and CARL M. DEFRANCO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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 7–10 and 14. 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 Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000535
Application 15/052,495
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to a vision-assist apparatus that
communicates with a guide animal.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 7, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A system for communicating with a guide animal,
comprising:
a first output device that provides a first output type that is
perceptible by a vision-impaired user;
a second output device that outputs a second output type
that is imperceptible by the vision-impaired user but is
perceptible by the guide animal utilized by the vision-impaired
user; and
a vision-assist computing device comprising a processor
and a memory component, the memory component storing logic
that causes the vision-assist computing device to perform at least
the following:
determine instructions to a destination;
determine a first command to provide to the vision-
impaired user to proceed to the destination;
determine a second command to provide to the guide
animal to correspond with the first command;
provide the first command via the first output device; and
provide the second command via the second output device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Golden US 8,955,462 B1 Feb. 17, 2015
Kulyukin US 2007/0018890 A1 Jan. 25, 2007

REJECTION
Claims 7–10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Golden and Kulyukin. Final Act. 2–3.

Appeal 2020-000535
Application 15/052,495
3
OPINION
Obviousness
The Examiner rejects the claims over the combination of Kulyukin
and Golden. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Kulyukin teaches the
claimed first command for the human, and that Golden teaches the claimed
second command for the guide animal corresponding to the first command.
Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kulyukin and add the guide
animal also receiving commands related to positioning the guide animal as
disclosed by Golden.” Id.
Appellant provides two main arguments against the Examiner’s
combination. First, Appellant asserts that Golden’s dynamic boundary does
not amount to the issuance of any command as recited in the claims. Reply
Br. 5. This is so because Golden teaches, essentially, a moving geofence
around the guide animal that urges the animal to move in a chosen direction.
Thus, Golden does not issue commands, instead adjusting “the boundary
such that the animal must move or be shocked.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant
next argues that the combination also fails to teach “corresponding two
different commands.” Id. Appellant is correct on this point because neither
reference contemplates coordinating the two sets of commands. Each prior
art reference is concerned with guiding only one of the two entities ––
Kulyukin the human and Golden the guide animal.
As to Appellant’s first argument, we generally agree that Golden’s
virtual leash is not the same as providing a corresponding command. As the
Specification explains, a “command may include an instruction, such as a
right turn instruction, a left turn instruction, a stop instruction, a proceed
instruction, and/or other instructions.” Spec. ¶ 26. The Specification goes
Appeal 2020-000535
Application 15/052,495
4
on to explain that “the second command may communicate similar
information as the first command” such that “if the instructions include a
command to take a left turn, the user may be provided with the first
command” and “the second command may convey the same information to
the guide animal.” Spec. ¶ 27. In this sense, both the user and the guide
animal receive the same command, thus, there is correspondence between
the two commands.
Golden, however, does not teach any discrete command as described
in the Specification. Essentially, Golden does not teach a specific command,
but provides a shock to the animal if it is not in the geofence of the virtual
leash. In this manner, Golden teaches prohibiting the animal from moving
in certain directions, as opposed to providing a command for it to move to a
desired location. Ultimately, the combination of Kulyukin and Golden could
result in both the human and the guide animal reaching the same destination,
but this is not done with corresponding commands as claimed. The
combination would, at best, provide a human with a set of commands about
where to go, and then provide a moving geofence creating a set of
commands about where the dog should not go.
An easy example to illustrate how these do not correspond is that the
user may receive a command to turn left. The guide animal, however,
receives no command and could actually turn right until it reaches the
geofence boundary and is urged to move in another direction. All the guide
animal knows is that it is now located in a prohibited area and that it must
move in some way to return to the desired area. The guide animal could
move in a number of directions before ultimately realizing that it generally
needs to move left to follow the human. In the claimed system, both the
human user and the guide animal would receive commands to turn left and
Appeal 2020-000535
Application 15/052,495
5
so the commands would thus correspond. Because we do not agree that the
Examiner’s combination teaches the claimed corresponding first and second
commands, we do not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED.
More specifically:
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–10, 14 103 Golden, Kulyukin 7–10, 14

REVERSED