AUDI AGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 21, 20212021002386 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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. 15/562,243 09/27/2017 Erwin ROTH 4557.0490001 9996 26111 7590 09/21/2021 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER JEN, MINGJEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2021 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): e-office@sternekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ERWIN ROTH, FLORIAN SCHULLER, DAVID LENZ, PASCAL MINNERUP, and CHAO CHEN Appeal 2021-002386 Application 15/562,243 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEVIN F. TURNER, and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, 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 11–24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Audi AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 The Office Action Summary dated June 24, 2020, erroneously indicates that claims 11–25 are pending in the application. Claim 25, depending from claim 11, was proposed as a new claim in an “Amendment and Reply Under Appeal 2021-002386 Application 15/562,243 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a method for identifying a parking space and a route leading thereto. Claim 11 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 11. A method for identifying an appropriate parking space for a motor vehicle and a route leading thereto, comprising: requesting, by a navigation system in the motor vehicle, of a piece of information regarding a parking place search from an external server that manages a parking lot having at least one parking space, before the parking lot is reached, wherein the parking lot is selected based on geographic proximity of the motor vehicle to the parking lot; sending the piece of information requested from the external server to the navigation system in the motor vehicle; executing, by the navigation system, a route search from a start node to a destination node, in which an initial basic reachability verification for the destination node from the start node is determined; identifying a route section that is required in order to reach the destination node from the start node; executing a second reachability verification, and a specific suitability test of the at least one parking space in the parking lot based on at least one parameter of the motor vehicle, wherein the second reachability verification is different from the initial basic reachability verification, and wherein the second reachability verification comprises assessing dimensions of the motor vehicle; loading a detailed route section identified from the external server to the navigation system in the motor vehicle; and 37 C.F.R. § 1.116,” dated November 13, 2019. An Advisory Action in response to this paper, dated November 22, 2019, indicated that the proposed amendments, which included the proposal to add claim 25, would not be entered. Claim 25 was not thereafter introduced by Appellant. Appeal 2021-002386 Application 15/562,243 3 calculating a collision-free route from the start node to the destination node. Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 11–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US 2012/0188100 A1, published July 26, 2012) in view of Gerlach (US 9,222,795 B1, issued Dec. 29, 2015) and Penilla (US 9,581,997 B1, issued Feb. 28, 2017). ANALYSIS Claims 11–20 The Examiner finds that Min discloses a number of the limitations set forth in claim 11, but “is silent regarding identifying a route section that is required and the parking lot is selected based on the geographic proximity of the motor vehicle to the parking lot.” Non-Final Act. 5–7. The Examiner relies on Gerlach as disclosing a step of identifying a required route section, and concludes that it would have been obvious to employ this step in the Min system and method. Id. at 7. The Examiner acknowledges that Min in view of Gerlach “does not further specify that the parking lot is selected based on the geographic proximity of the motor vehicle to the parking lot.” Id. The Examiner maintains that Penilla discloses a system in which the parking lot is selected based on the geographic proximity of the motor vehicle to the parking lot, in that it describes, at column 6, lines 51–65, a vehicle navigating to different auto parking locations or parking lots, and a downloading of parking lot map information only when the vehicle operator Appeal 2021-002386 Application 15/562,243 4 elects or selects the lot for parking the vehicle. Id. The Examiner additionally states that Penilla is used to enhance the operation of the Min system “by supplying specific parking lot map download utilizing proximity.” Ans. 9. Appellant argues that the portions of Penilla relied on by the Examiner do not disclose the selection of a parking lot based on geographic proximity of the motor vehicle to the parking lot, but instead operates to download parking map information on the premise that the vehicle has already reached, or is proximate, the garage or parking lot. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant thus maintains that Penilla does not describe selecting a parking lot, because the vehicle is already at the parking lot, and the Examiner does not explain how Penilla is otherwise being interpreted. Id. at 12–13. Appellant sums up additional points made relative to the Penilla disclosure, saying, “[i]n fact, Penilla is similar to Min in that Penilla does not concern itself with why or how a vehicle has arrived at the parking structure– Penilla’s concern is with auto-park within the parking structure,” by providing slot map information once the vehicle arrives. Reply Br. 7. In reply, the Examiner shifts focus back to Min as disclosing operation of the system prior to the vehicle having reached the parking garage or lot, citing paragraph 49 as setting forth that “the server device 200 generates a route to final parking slot using the information about the final parking slot, . . . the vehicle 300 performs autonomous driving up to the nearby area.” Ans. 8–9 (emphasis omitted). Appellant has the better position here. As to the Examiner’s above quotation from Min, Appellant accurately responds that the disclosure is directed to the automated two-step parking process once the vehicle is within Appeal 2021-002386 Application 15/562,243 5 the parking lot or garage, and the “driving up to the nearby area” is in reference to the area within the garage nearby the selected slot. The Examiner’s reliance on Min as teaching operation prior to vehicle arrival at the parking location is misplaced. Although both Appellant and the Examiner discuss the limitation “parking lot is selected . . .” in a somewhat shorthand manner, the step at issue in claim 11 involves “requesting, by a navigation system . . . a piece of information regarding a parking place search . . . before the parking lot is reached, wherein the parking lot is selected based on geographic proximity of the motor vehicle to the parking lot.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The portions of Penilla relied on by the Examiner describe that, once at a particular parking lot, either a proximity sensor of some type or an operator selection of some type, triggers the download of parking slot map information so that the vehicle may be parked autonomously. Penilla, col. 6, ll. 51–65; Fig. 7. We note that other portions of Penilla appear to suggest a pairing of a vehicle with a self-park location, such as a garage or lot, based on geographic proximity of the two, but the system operates on determining whether the vehicle is proximate to the self-park location for a threshold period of time “indicative of the vehicle desiring to enter the self-park location.” Penilla, col. 21, ll. 49–67; Fig. 18. Passages such as this also seem to suggest that the self-park location has already been selected by the vehicle operator. In any event, without having the benefit of a claim Appeal 2021-002386 Application 15/562,243 6 construction and application of such other teachings by the Examiner, we do not find it advisable to attempt to apply such teachings to the claims. The rejection of claim 11 as being unpatentable over Min, Gerlach, and Penilla is not sustained. Independent claim 19 includes essentially the same limitation at issue relative to claim 11, and the rejection of claim 19 is also not sustained. The rejection is also not sustained as to claims 12–18 and 20, which depend from one of these independent claims. Claims 21–24 Independent claim 21 is similar in several respects to independent claims 11 and 19. The limitation at issue for those claims involving selection of a parking lot based on geographic proximity is instead, in claim 21: receiving from the navigation system of the motor vehicle a request for a piece of information regarding a parking place search before the parking lot is reached by the motor vehicle, wherein the parking lot is selected based on an input to the navigation system. Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner relies on Penilla as disclosing the selection of the parking lot based on an input to the navigation system. Non-Final Act. 14. The Examiner again relies on the discussion in Penilla at column 6, lines 51– 65, and additionally relies on a discussion at column 6, lines 4–18, directed to use of portable electronics or smart devices as being synchronized with the vehicle electronics for use with the Penilla system. Id. Appellant points out that the additional disclosure relied on by the Examiner does not particularly involve any manner in which a selection of a parking lot is made, and essentially repeats the arguments that the disclosure also relied on by the Examiner in the rejection of claims 11 and 19 does not Appeal 2021-002386 Application 15/562,243 7 involve receiving information regarding a parking place before a parking place is reached, because Penilla assumes that the vehicle has already reached the parking lot. Appeal Br. 15–16. For essentially the same reasons discussed above relative to claims 11 and 19, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 as being unpatentable over Min, Gerlach, and Penilla. The same applies for dependent claims 22–24. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 11–24 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 11–24 103 Min, Gerlach, Penilla 11–24 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation