Ex Parte Naik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13291314 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/291,314 11/08/2011
81466 7590 11/02/2016
MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM
One Maritime Plaza
720 Water Street
5th Floor
Toledo, OH 43604
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sanjeev M. Naik
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.
P009929-RD-MJL 4203
EXAMINER
KWAN,MATTHEWK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
docketing@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANJEEV M. NAIK, WENDE ZHANG, and SHUQING ZENG1
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-22, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology
Operations, LLC. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
Introduction
Appellants disclose "[a]n active vision system includes an image
capture device for capturing images in a region exterior of a vehicle and a
headlamp control unit for controlling a vehicle headlamp beam for
illuminating an environment exterior of a vehicle." (Spec., Abstract.)
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An active vision system for a vehicle comprising:
an image capture device for capturing images in a region
exterior of a vehicle; and
a headlamp control unit for controlling a vehicle headlamp
beam for illuminating an environment exterior of a vehicle, the
headlamp control unit configured to selectively illuminate
between making a path of travel of a road visible to a driver of
the vehicle and making the region exterior of the vehicle visible
for capturing images by the image capture device;
wherein the headlamp control unit utilizes a duty cycle for
controlling a first cycle time that the headlamp beam illuminates
the path of travel for making the road visible to the driver and for
controlling a second cycle time that the headlamp beam makes
the captured region visible for capturing images by the image
capture device.
(App. Br. 22 (Claims App'x).)
Rejections
Claims 1-20 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Higgins-Luthman (US 2009/0016073 Al; publ. Jan. 15, 2009)
("Higgins") and Stam et al. (US 2008/0129206 Al; publ. June 5, 2008)
("Stam"). (Final Act. 3-8.)
Claim 21 stands rejected as obvious over Higgins, Stam, and Horii et
al. (US 2005/0027419 Al; publ. Feb. 3, 2005) ("Horii"). (Final Act. 9.)
2
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
ISSUES
Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 6, 13, and 20 together as a group on the
basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8) and separately argue each of claims 2, 3, 5,
7-12, 14--19, 21, and 22 (App. Br. 9-21). The issues before us are whether
the Examiner errs in rejecting each of the separately argued claims.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. With the exception of claim 18, we disagree with Appellants'
conclusions and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-15)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 9-17). With the exception of claim 18, we
concur with the Examiner's conclusions. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Claims j, 4, 6, j 3, and 20
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Higgins for teaching the
image capture device and the headlamp control unit, and on Stam for the
"wherein the headlamp control unit utilizes a duty cycle ... "requirements.
(Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3 (both citing Higgins Fig. 1, i-f 22; Stam i-fi-18, 136).)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because "Stam fails to describe or
suggest the limitations of duty cycling the headlamp beam between the road
of travel and the region captured by the image capture device as recited."
(App. Br. 7 .) Appellants further argue there would have been no motivation
to combine Higgins and Stam "as the duty cycle in Stam is just to control the
illumination intensity of the headlamps which are pointed in a fixed
direction." (Id. at 8.)
3
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
Appellants do not persuade us. Higgins, which relates "to vehicle
lighting systems that may control the headlamps of the vehicle" (i-f 2), states:
The illumination source thus may automatically illuminate signs
or other objects of interest at the side of the road, such as to
provide automatic illumination for ... enhanced viewing, or to
provide enhanced illumination for an object recognition system
of the vehicle ....
For applications with an object recognition system, the
imaging device may automatically capture at least one image of
the object when the object is illuminated by the illumination
source .... Optionally, the control may direct or adjust and flash
the illumination source in response to detection of the object ... ,
whereby the imaging device may be synchronized with the
flashing illumination source to capture one or more images of the
object during the brief period of time that the sign or object area
is illuminated ....
(Higgins i1i122-23.) Higgins thus teaches the claimed image capture device
and headlamp control unit for selectively illuminating the path of vehicle
travel and the other "region exterior ... for capturing images."
Stam, which also relates to headlamp control (Abstract, i1i12, 8),
teaches techniques for adjusting headlamp illumination between high- and
low-beams by varying duty cycles (i-fi-f 135-36). We agree with the
Examiner it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill "to modify
Higgin[s'] automatic headlight control system which illuminates the front
and side of the road with the duty cycle of Stam to improve vision on the
sides of a car by alternately illuminating the path of travel and the side of the
road." (Ans. 10.) We find Appellants' argument the Examiner errs because
Stam teaches only "duty cycling of headlamps either on or off' (App. Br. 8)
unpersuasive because it does not address the combined teachings of Higgins
and Stam. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for
4
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Appellants have not asserted that the proposed modification would
have been beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Absent such an assertion, we "take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ," and find a
person of ordinary skill in the art would overcome those difficulties within
their level of skill. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007);
see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.").
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1, and along with it
claims 4, 6, 13, and 20.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-12, 14-19, 21, and 22
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 2 and 3
because Higgins does not teach or suggest the claimed synchronization
between the image capture device and headlamp control unit. (App. Br. 9-
10.) Appellants further argue Higgins is deficient because it "describes that
directing the illumination is in response to detecting the object" whereas the
claimed invention "captures the image in the region when illuminated based
on synchronization." (Reply Br. 3 (citing Higgins i-f 23).) We find these
arguments unpersuasive in view of the teachings and suggestions that flow
from Higgins' disclosure that "the imaging device may be synchronized with
the flashing illumination source to capture one or more images of the object
5
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
during the brief period of time that the sign or object area is illuminated."
(Higgins i-f 23.) We sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Claim 5 recites "an azimuth glance operating mode, wherein the
headlamp control unit re-directs the headlamp beam horizontally between
the primary region and the secondary region." Appellants contend, without
providing any citations to the Specification, that azimuth glance operating
mode is defined to mean "illumination will only be autonomously directed in
a side-to-side direction in which the image capture device is directed."
(App. Br. 11.) We disagree. Claim S's "wherein ... "recitation delineates
the azimuth glance operating mode requirements.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 5 because "[i]n
Higgins, there is no azimuth operating mode; rather, Higgins redirects light
based on the direction the driver is glancing." (Id.) This does not persuade
us of Examiner error; we agree with the Examiner's finding that "wherein
the headlamp control unit re-directs the headlamp beam horizontally
between the primary region and the secondary region" as recited in claim 5
encompasses Higgins' teaching of controlling headlamps to redirect
illumination between the front and side of the vehicle. (See Ans. 13 (citing
Higgins i-fi-113, 22).) We sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 7-11 because
Higgins fails to disclose the claimed "secondary region" requirements2 of
"the sides of the road for identifying a geometry of the road" (claim 7), "a
location where road signs are potentially located" (claim 8), "a location
2 Claims 7-11 each recite a limitation that "[t]he active vision system of
claim 5 wherein the primary region is the path of travel of the vehicle and
the secondary region is .... " (App. Br. 23-24 (Claims App'x).)
6
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
where pedestrians are potentially located" (claim 9), "a location where
animals are potentially located" (claim 10), and "a location where road side
objects are potentially located" (claim 11). (App. Br. 12-14.) We find these
arguments unpersuasive in view of Higgins' teachings that its automatic
lighting system can detect signs, animals, pedestrians, and other objects.
(See Ans. 13-14 (citing Higgins i-f 22).) We sustain the rejection of claims
7-11.
Claim 12 differs from claim 5 by reciting "an elevation glance ...
mode" instead of an "azimuth glance ... mode." Appellants make similar
arguments for claim 12 as for claim 5, which we find unpersuasive in view
of Higgins' disclosure of adjusting the principal axis of illumination
"optionally vertically." (See Ans. 14 (citing Higgins i-f 13).) We sustain the
rejection of claim 12.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 14 and 15
because Higgins fails to disclose the claimed "secondary region"
requirements3 of "a location where overhead signs are potentially located"
(claim 14) and "a location where overhead objects are potentially located"
(claim 15). (App. Br. 16.) We find these arguments unpersuasive for the
same reasons discussed supra for claims 7-11 and 12; we sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 15.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 16, which
recites a "scanning mode" that redirects headlamp illumination "between the
road of travel and both sides," because Higgins describes adjusting
3 Claims 14 and 15 recite a limitation that "[t]he active vision system of
claim 12 wherein the primary region is a path of travel of the vehicle and the
secondary region is .... " App. Br. 22-25 (Claims App.).)
7
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
illumination based on "gaze direction" and does not teach or suggest any
"scanning mode." (App. Br. 16-17 (citing Higgins i-f 17).) We are
unpersuaded. "Gaze detection" in Higgins is a feature that supplements its
"automatic lighting system" that otherwise "provides enhanced illumination
... at a side of a road ... to enhance the viewing by the driver and/or
imaging device of signs and the like .... " (Higgins i-f 24 (emphasis added.)
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that Higgins
teaches automatic illumination at the sides of a vehicle that is within the
scope of the recited "scanning mode" requirements (see Ans. 13 (citing
Higgins i-fi-113, 22); see also Higgins i-fi-123-26.) We sustain the rejection of
claim 16.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 17 because
"Higgins fails to describe an instrument control unit for allowing the driver
to select [from] among the plurality of system operating modes" as recited.
(App. Br. 17.) Appellants further contend, without citation, that the
Specification defines the plurality of system operating modes to be those
enumerated (azimuth glance mode, etc.). (Id.)
We disagree that the plurality of operating modes is limited based on
the Specification. We also find Appellants do not persuasively explain why
the Examiner's finding that Higgins teaches this requirement by its
disclosure of an instrument panel that enables an operator to selectively or
partially enable the activation of the illumination system, with partial
enablement "interpreted as selecting an operating mode," is erroneous.
(Ans. 16 (citing Higgins i-f 19).) We sustain the rejection of claim 17.
8
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 184 by finding
Higgins teaches or suggests that "the image capture device is steerable" as
recited. (App. Br. 18.) The Examiner responds by finding that while
"Higgins clearly discloses a forward facing camera" (that is, a camera that is
fixed, not steerable) and that "[a] camera can also be steerable by means of
the car steering wheel. Moreover, a camera mounted on a rear view mirror
that is directed towards a driving instructor can still capture a secondary
region exterior to the vehicle. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 are
met." (Ans. 16-17.) We find Appellants' argument persuasive. Neither
Higgins nor Stam mentions a camera that is steerable or that otherwise
moves, and the Examiner has not identified any disclosure or other reason
for why such a teaching or suggestion arises from these references. We do
not sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 19 by finding
that Higgins (i-fi-f 7, 20) teaches the recited requirements for a "body control
module" that obtains geographical information for use with the headlamp
control unit in re-directing the headlamps. (App. Br. 18-19.) We disagree.
Higgins teaches that incorporating navigation systems "may also function to
disable, enable, or partially enable or limit the operation of the adjustable
illumination system." (i-f 20.) We sustain the rejection of claim 19.
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein the controller[5J
adjusts the duty cycle of the illumination of the vehicle headlamp as a
4 Claim 18 recites "[t ]he active vision system of claim 3 wherein the image
capture device is steerable to a respective position for capturing images in
the secondary region."
5 Claim 1 does not recite "a controller." Without making a determination
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 regarding indefiniteness, for analysis of this prior art
9
Appeal2015-000948
Application 13/291,314
function of the speed of travel of the vehicle." The Examiner finds this
requirement obvious in view of Horii' s disclosure of "a vehicle speed
sensor" as an input to its "light distribution control" for directing headlights,
in combination with the variable duty cycle teachings of Stam. (Final Act.
20-21.) We agree. Appellants' argument that Horii fails to teach the duty
cycle-related requirement does not address the Examiner's reliance on Stam
for that aspect. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 ("[T]he test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art."). We sustain the rejection of claim 21.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 22 because
"Higgins fails to teach or suggest synchronization" as recited. App. Br. 19.
We find this unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra with regards to
claims 1-3 and for the reasons as articulated by the Examiner's Answer (pp.
10-11). We sustain the rejection of claim 22.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-17 and 19-22, and reverse the rejection of claim 18. 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-IN-PART
rejection we construe the antecedent basis for "the controller" in claim 21 as
the "headlamp control unit." In the event of further prosecution, we suggest
Appellants amend this claim to address this antecedent basis issue.
10