Waymo LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 15, 20212021003339 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation