Waymo LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2021003339 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021)

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.
16/009,499 06/15/2018 William Grossman XSDV 3.0F-089 1479
146033 7590 12/15/2021
WAYMO LLC
BOTOS CHURCHILL IP LAW
430 Mountain Ave
Suite 401
New Providence, NJ 07974
EXAMINER
VORCE, AMELIA J.I.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2021 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@bciplaw.com
waymo@bciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM GROSSMAN and BENJAMIN PITZER

Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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 1–6, 8–14, and 16–22. See Appeal
Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

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 “Waymo
LLC.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to “[a]utonomous vehicles, such
as vehicles that do not require a human driver.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claims
1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and
is reproduced below.
1. A side sensor assembly for use on a truck or bus capable
of operating in an autonomous driving mode, the side sensor
assembly comprising:
a housing having one or more exterior surfaces and an
interior receptacle, at least one of the one or more exterior
surfaces including a side view mirror thereon;
a mounting element having a first end and a second end
remote from the first end, the first end being coupled to the
housing along one or more mounting points, the second end
being configured to rigidly secure the housing to the truck or bus;
a plurality of sensors received within the interior
receptacle of the housing, the plurality of sensors including a pair
of light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, a first one of the
pair of LIDAR sensors being a long range LIDAR having a
detection range of at least 50 meters and a second one of the pair
of LIDAR sensors being a short range LIDAR having a detection
range of no more than 50 meters, wherein the plurality of sensors
received within the interior receptacle of the housing are affixed
within the housing relative to a common vertical axis; and
a conduit received within the mounting element, the
conduit providing one or more of a power line, a data line and a
cooling line to the plurality of sensors received within the
housing and configured for connection to one or more
operational systems of the truck or bus.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Frank et al. (“Frank”) US 2018/0032822 A1 Feb. 1, 2018
Fakhfakh et al.
(“Fakhfakh”)
US 2018/0095473 A1 Apr. 5, 2018
Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499

3
Juelsgaard et al.
(“Juelsgaard”)
US 2018/0372875 A1 Dec. 27, 2018
Zeleny et al. (“Zeleny”) US 2019/0072646 A1 Mar. 7, 2019
Lee US 2019/0168569 A1 June 6, 2019
Li et al. (“Li”) US 2020/0064483 A1 Feb. 27, 2020
Lang et al. (“Lang”) US 6,361,178 B1 Mar. 26, 2002
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Frank, Fakhfakh, and Juelsgaard.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Frank,
Fakhfakh, Juelsgaard, and Zeleny.
Claims 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Frank, Fakhfakh, Juelsgaard, and Li.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Frank, Fakhfakh, Juelsgaard, and Lee.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Frank, Fakhfakh, Juelsgaard, and Lang.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, 18, and 19
as unpatentable over Frank, Fakhfakh, and Juelsgaard
Appellant argues all these claims together. See Appeal Br. 5–11. We
select claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation of a housing and a plurality
of sensors “affixed within the housing relative to a common vertical axis.”
Claim 1 does not specify any particular vertical axis the sensors must be
Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499

4
relative to, only that, after affixation, the sensors must be “relative to a
common vertical axis.” Hence, it would appear that any vertical axis would
suffice, so long as the sensors can be said to be affixed “relative to” such
axis.
The Examiner relies on the primary reference to Frank for disclosing
“a plurality of sensors received within the interior receptacle of the
housing,” and on Juelsgaard for teaching “a plurality of sensors . . . affixed
within the housing relative to a common vertical axis.” Final Act. 5, 9; see
also Ans. 2–3. We understand that there is a dispute as to whether
Juelsgaard’s published application is applicable prior art, but there is no
apparent dispute that Juelsgaard’s provisional application is applicable prior
art.2 See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 7.
In fact, both Appellant and the Examiner replicate Paragraph 112 of
Juelsgaard’s provisional application albeit for different reasons (Appellant
arguing that Juelsgaard’s provisional application does not support the
Examiner’s findings identified in Juelsgaard’s published application while
the Examiner finds support for the rejection even in Juelsgaard’s provisional
application). See Appeal Br. 8; Ans. 9; Reply Br. 7–8. The relevant part of
Paragraph 112 of Juelsgaard’s provisional application is as follows:
As shown with FIG. 7A, the sensor assembly 700 may be
structured in a housing or package that mounts to each side of the
cabin 310. In some examples the sensor assembly 700 mounts to
a region that is under, or near the side mirror of the truck.

2 Appellant contends, “the Juelsgaard ’192 provisional application does not
support the features of the Juelsgaard published application that [the
Examiner relies] upon to reject the pending claims.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply
Br. 7.
Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499

5
As a consequence of such teachings, the Examiner concludes that
Juelsgaard’s provisional application teaches a “sensor assembly” that, as
described therein, is “structured in a housing or package” which is, itself,
mounted to the truck’s cabin (or even “under, or near the side mirror”). Ans.
10. Appellant does not explain how, upon the sensor assembly being
“structured in a housing” as described, these sensors fail to be “affixed
within the housing relative to a common vertical axis” as recited. We
construe “affixed . . . relative to a common vertical axis” more broadly than
requiring that they be in alignment with respect to a specific vertical axis.
See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(explaining that, during prosecution, claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification). There is no
indication that the sensors are loose within the housing such that they can
freely move about therein. If such were the case, the data obtained from
these unattached sensors could not be calibrated with respect to each other
since they would always be changing positions and/or orientations with
respect to each other. Hence, any wanted field of view data obtained from
these sensors would be erratic at best, or, at worst, not even be in the desired
field of view at all. Further, even without the teachings of Juelsgaard, it is
equally understood that Frank’s sensors, located within a mirror housing (see
Frank Fig. 1; ¶¶ 13, 15), are likewise “affixed within the housing relative to
a common vertical axis” as recited.
Appellant contends that “Juelsgaard’s written disclosure is silent in
regard to how the components of the sensor assembly are disposed therein.”
Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. However, as noted above, Juelsgaard teaches
sensors structurally located in a housing, and Appellant does not explain
Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499

6
how Juelsgaard’s sensors, after being so located, fail to also be positioned
(or affixed) “within the housing relative to a common vertical axis.” This is
because, as noted above, any vertical axis could be referenced once the
sensors are properly installed. Furthermore, and as noted above, Frank
clearly illustrates the various sensors mounted with respect to each other in a
side mirror housing (and thus Frank’s sensors can also be said to be “affixed
within the housing relative to a common vertical axis”). See Frank Fig. 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 9–
12, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable over Frank, Fakhfakh3, and Juelsgaard.
The rejection of: (a) claim 4 as unpatentable over Frank, Fakhfakh,
Juelsgaard, and Zeleny; (b) claims 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 as unpatentable
over Frank, Fakhfakh, Juelsgaard, and Li; (c) claim 20 as unpatentable over
Frank, Fakhfakh, Juelsgaard, and Lee; and, (d) claims 21 and 22 as
unpatentable over Frank, Fakhfakh, Juelsgaard, and Lang
Of these rejections, Appellant only presents arguments with respect to
claims 8 and 16. See Appeal Br. 11–14. With respect to both claims,
Appellant contends that “Li does not disclose the ‘common vertical axis’
features” that are recited. See Appeal Br. 11, 13; Reply Br. 12, 17.
Li was relied upon to teach sensors that are “calibrated collectively
relative to a common axis.” Final Act. 17 (referencing Li ¶ 181); Ans. 12.
Here, the focus by the Examiner is on Li’s teachings of “calibrated
collectively” since a common vertical axis has already been taught by both
Frank and Juelsgaard. To be clear, Paragraph 181 of Li teaches supporting a
cluster of LIDAR units via a support structure so as to “keep the positions
between the lidar units known and fixed.” Paragraph 181 of Li also teaches

3 Fakhfakh was relied upon with respect to other limitations not addressed
here. See Final Act. 7–8.
Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499

7
that “[c]alibration between the lidar units within the same group may occur
upon powering up the vehicle and/or initialization of the vehicle.” See also
Li ¶ 182. Hence, Li teaches collective calibration of a group of sensors,
rather than individual calibration.
Appellant does not dispute such teachings. Thus, Appellant’s
contentions for claims 8 and 16 that “Li does not disclose the ‘common
vertical axis’ features” recited (Appeal Br. 11, 13) are not fatal to the
Examiner’s reliance on Li for teaching collective calibration.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 8, 13,
14, 16, 17, and 20–22 in view of the specific combination of references
cited.
CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–14, and 16–22 is
affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 9–
12, 18, 19
103 Frank, Fakhfakh,
Juelsgaard
1–3, 5, 9–
12, 18, 19

4 103 Frank, Fakhfakh,
Juelsgaard, Zeleny
4
6, 8, 13,
14, 16, 17
103 Frank, Fakhfakh,
Juelsgaard, Li
6, 8, 13,
14, 16, 17

20 103 Frank, Fakhfakh,
Juelsgaard, Lee
20
21, 22 103 Frank, Fakhfakh,
Juelsgaard, Lang
21, 22
Appeal 2021-003339
Application 16/009,499

8
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–14,
16–22

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).

AFFIRMED