Ex Parte Conrad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

13678191 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/678,191 11115/2012
60770 7590 10/18/2016
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin P. Conrad
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P019480-GMVE-LDA 1198
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN P. CONRAD
Appeal2015-001045
Application 13/678,191
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-001045
Application 13/678,191
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for use in an active safety system installed on a
host vehicle, comprising the steps of:
for each of a plurality of consecutively-arranged target
objects in a common path in front of the host vehicle,
calculating a time to collision (TTC) between the target object
and the host vehicle;
evaluating one or more of the calculated TTCs to
determine if the host vehicle is likely to collide with one or
more of the target objects corresponding to the evaluated one or
more calculated TTCs; and
when the host vehicle is likely to collide with one or
more of the plurality of target objects, triggering one or more
collision avoidance measures.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuge (US 2007/0276577 Al, pub. Nov. 29, 2007) and
Rubin (US 2013/0282357 Al, pub. Oct. 24, 2013). 1
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kuge, Rubin, and Sakugawa (US 2012/0330541 Al, pub. Dec. 27,
2012).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-24 as unpatentable over Kuge and Rubin
Appellant argues claims 1-5 and 7-19 as a group and argues claims
21-24 separately. Appeal Br. 4--12. We select claim 1 as representative of
the group (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)) and address claims 21-24 separately.
1 Although the caption for this rejection lists claims 1-20 as being rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kuge and Rubin, the body of the rejection
includes findings only for claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-24. See Final Act. 2-5.
2
Appeal2015-001045
Application 13/678,191
Claims 1-5 and 7-19
The Examiner found that Kuge discloses a method for using an active
safety system, substantially as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 17,
including calculating a time to collision (TTC) between a host vehicle and a
plurality of target objects. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. The Examiner found that
Kuge does not disclose a plurality of vehicles consecutively arranged in a
common path in front of a host vehicle, but Rubin does. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify
Kuge' s method of calculating a TTC in view of Rubin to calculate the TTC
of the next consecutively-arranged vehicle in front of the host vehicle and
thereby to use the radar or camera sensor to see beyond the normal vision of
the driver as in Rubin to improve the safety of the vehicle. Id.
Appellant argues that Kuge determines a headway and following
distance for several objects in an angular range in front of a host vehicle but
not necessarily in the same lane or same path. Appeal Br. 5-7. Appellant
also argues that Kuge discloses calculating a TTC for a single object in the
same lane as the host vehicle but does not calculate a TTC for a plurality of
objects in the path of the host vehicle. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Kuge discloses the use of
laser radar device 10 to detect headway (following distances) between a host
vehicle and a plurality of objects located in front of the host vehicle such as
rear ends of preceding vehicles or obstacles. Kuge i-f 52. Detected headway
distances and relative velocities are sent to controller 150. Id. The fact that
Kuge detects and measures distances to and velocities of preceding vehicles
in a path that is ± 6 degrees of the front of the host vehicle means that these
preceding vehicles are in a "common path" with the host vehicle, as claimed.
3
Appeal2015-001045
Application 13/678,191
We do not interpret "a common path" to mean only a single lane in
which a host vehicle travels, as Appellant argues. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant discloses that a transmitter obtains readings for a plurality of
vehicles "within the same path of host vehicle 12." Spec. i-f 19. Claim 1 is
not so limited to target objects in the same traffic lane as the host vehicle.
We agree with the Examiner that Kuge detects vehicles and obstacles that
precede a host vehicle in "a common path" as claimed. Ans. 2-3. A path
that is ± 6 degrees would encompass preceding vehicles in the same lane as
the host vehicle and other vehicles in a path that is common with the host
vehicle. Therefore, Appellant's arguments regarding Kuge's detection of
vehicles in a different lane (Appeal Br. 6) are not persuasive.
We also agree with the Examiner that Kuge teaches a system that can
calculate a time to collision (TTC) for any preceding vehicle or obstacle in
the common path of the host vehicle because the laser-measured distance
and velocity readings of those preceding vehicles and obstacles are sent to
controller 150, which performs TTC calculations. Kuge i-fi-152, 72-78. At a
minimum, such calculations would have been obvious in view of Kuge' s
teachings to calculate a TTC for the vehicle immediately preceding the host
vehicle, as a way to determine which preceding vehicle or obstacle presents
the most immediate risk of collision to the host vehicle, i.e., has the smallest
TTC. See id. i-fi-179-80; Ans. 3. Claim 1 requires calculation of a TTC for
each preceding target object in a common path with a host vehicle. Claim 1
requires evaluation of "one or more of the calculated TTCs," which Kuge
discloses in the Figure 9 embodiment as recognized by Appellant. Appeal
Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. As modified by Rubin, Kuge can calculate TTCs to
consecutively-arranged preceding vehicles, even in the same lane.
4
Appeal2015-001045
Application 13/678,191
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained why it would
have been obvious to combine a single feature from Rubin (a radar that sees
under an adjacent vehicle to detect the next adjacent vehicle) with Kuge's
system to arrive at the method of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9. This argument is
not persuasive of error in the Examiner's reason for modifying Kuge with
Rubin's teachings to use a laser to see under an adjacent vehicle to detect the
next adjacent or consecutive vehicle beyond what a driver can see thereby to
improve the safety of the vehicle. Rubin i-f 164. The Examiner's reasoning
is supported by a rational underpinning of improving safety, particularly in
view of Rubin's teaching that such method "is better than the vision of the
driver." Id. As modified, Kuge's system can detect and calculate TTCs to
consecutively-arranged vehicles in a common path with a host vehicle. The
teachings of Rubin extend the range and capabilities of Kuge' s laser device
to track and evaluate preceding vehicles beyond the vision of a driver.
Appellant's remaining arguments amount to individual attacks on the
references where the Examiner relies on their combined teachings to render
obvious claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-19.
Claims 21 and 22
Claims 21 and 22 depend respectively from claims 1 and 10 and recite
a first target vehicle located in front of the host vehicle and a second target
vehicle located in front of the first target vehicle in a common path in front
of the host vehicle where the calculating step calculates a TTC between the
second target vehicle and a host vehicle by emitting and receiving signals
underneath the first target vehicle. The Examiner relied on Kuge in view of
Rubin's teaching to use a laser underneath a preceding vehicle. Final Act. 5.
5
Appeal2015-001045
Application 13/678,191
Appellant argues that Rubin and Kuge do not teach or suggest this
claimed arrangement of vehicles recited in claims 21 and 22. Appeal Br. 11.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Kuge teaches that distances and velocities of multiple vehicles traveling in a
common path ahead of a host vehicle can be measured. Kuge also teaches or
suggests that TTCs can be calculated for each of these preceding vehicles so
that the vehicle with the minimum TTC can be evaluated and monitored.
See Kuge i-fi-152, 72-84. As modified by Rubin's teaching, Kuge can detect
and calculate a TTC for the immediately preceding vehicle and a vehicle( s)
preceding that vehicle by emitting laser beams under a preceding vehicle to
the next adjacent vehicle. Rubin i-f 164. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claims 21 and 22.
Claims 23 and 24
Claims 23 and 24 depend from claims 1 and 102 respectively and
recite a first target vehicle in front of the host vehicle and a second target
vehicle in front of the first target vehicle in a common path in front of the
host vehicle as in claims 21 and 22 "wherein the triggering step comprises
triggering one or more collision avoidance measures in response to the
second target vehicle."
The Examiner found that Kuge teaches this method step except for the
consecutively-arranged target vehicles, which Rubin teaches as discussed
above. Final Act. 2-3. Appellant argues that Kuge and Rubin do not teach
triggering or collision avoidance measures in response to a second target
vehicle in front of the first target vehicle. Appeal Br. 12.
2 Appellant notes that claim 23 and 24 both depend from claim 1, but claim
24 is supposed to depend from claim 10. Appeal Br. 11.
6
Appeal2015-001045
Application 13/678,191
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's
findings and rationale for combining teachings of Kuge and Rubin to render
obvious this subject matter for the reasons discussed above. As modified by
teachings of Rubin (i-f 164), Kuge can detect, calculate TTCs, and trigger one
or more collision avoidance measures in response to a second target vehicle.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 24.
Claims 6 and 20 as unpatentable over Kuge, Rubin, and Sakugawa
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the rejection of
claims 6 and 20. See Appeal Br. 10 (arguing that dependent claims 2-9 are
patentable due to their dependency from claim 1, and dependent claims 18-
20 are patentable due to their dependency from claim 17). Thus, we sustain
the rejection of claims 6 and 20 summarily.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7