FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 25, 20202019002602 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020) 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. 14/589,749 01/05/2015 Krishnaswamy Venkatesh PRASAD 83505445 6636 28395 7590 11/25/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER EL-BATHY, IBRAHIM N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/25/2020 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@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KRISHNASWAMY VENKATESH PRASAD, BRYAN ROGER GOODMAN, ERIC H. WINGFIELD, and MICHAEL JAMES WHITENS1 ____________________ Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6 through 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Ford Global Technologies LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 2 INVENTION The invention relates generally to a vehicle reservation system which includes a server with a transceiver to communicate data with a remote vehicle computer system and a car-reservation system and a processor to utilize the data to output a car-sharing social-graph, the car-sharing social- graph including a vehicle for sharing, a vehicle-location, a user-location, and a potential parking-spot for sharing the vehicle. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A server comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate data with a remote vehicle computer system and a car-reservation system; and a processor configured to utilize the data to output on a mobile phone a car sharing social-graph, the car-sharing social- graph including graphical output depicting a vehicle for sharing, a vehicle-location, a user-location, and a potential parking-spot for sharing the vehicle, wherein the processor is further configured to remotely unlock the vehicle utilizing vehicle control data and determining the vehicle is rented and an authorized user has rented the vehicle utilizing a car-sharing community. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS23 The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 7. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 15, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) Final Office Action mailed January 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 24, 2019 (“Ans.”). 3 The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Final Act. 8– 11) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 3 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 10 through 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutmann (US 2006/0259353 A1, published November 16, 2006) and Iyer (US 9,194,710 B1, issued November. 24, 2015). Final Act. 13–27. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Behr (WO 2016/040888 A1, published March 17, 2016). Final Act. 27–29. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Beaurepaire (US 2016/0189098 A1, published June 30, 2016). Final Act. 29–32. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Lohmeier (US 2015/0371153 A1, published December. 24, 2015). Final Act. 32–23. The Examiner rejected claims 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Lee (US 2017/0228945A1, published August 10, 2017). Final Act. 33. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness Rejection. Appellant argues the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 21 is in error as: [P]aragraph 40 of the specification states that an ideal user may be a “recommendation” that is “based on the social graph.” Thus, it can be interpreted that an “ideal user” is a user that is based on a recommendation from the social graph. Appeal Br. 3. The Examiner states that the term “ideal user” is a term of degree and that the Specification does not provide a standard to for measuring the term Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 4 of degree such that the skilled artisan can determine the scope of the claim. Ans. 4 (citing MPEP § 2173.05(b), Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367, (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, (Fed. Cir. 1984 ).) Further the Examiner identifies that paragraph 40 of the Specification “doesn’t elaborate to give [a] boundary meaning for the term ‘ideal’, how can one distinguish what is expected to be an ‘ideal’ user, it could be a range of interpretations such as a tech savvy user to a novice user, one cannot determine what is the expectancy is of an ‘ideal’ user.” Ans. 4. We concur with the Examiner that the claimed term “ideal” is a term of degree and do not find that paragraph 40 provides any guidance as to how the “ideal user” is differentiated from any other user. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Obviousness Rejections Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 is in error as the claim recites a processor to remotely unlock the vehicle which is not taught by the combination of the references. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant argues that Gutmann, the reference the Examiner relies upon for this limitation, teaches that a card reader may be able to communicate with a central reservation system but the reference “never explains that [the card reader] is for unlocking the vehicle as the claims require.” Id. at. 6. Further, the Appellant states: Thus, the server of Gutmann is not able to remotely unlock the Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 5 vehicle. Instead, the card reader is capable of unlocking the vehicle only when it is in close proximity. Just because the card reader can obtain reservation information remotely, does not mean that the server of Gutmann is capable of “remotely unlocking the vehicle.” Therefore, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. 7. Appellant further argues that The claims require that the processor is utilized to remotely unlock the vehicle, or in other words, unlock the vehicle without being in a vicinity of the vehicle. Instead, the Examiner admits that Guttman requires in paragraph 55 that [an] “identification card [communicates] with the vehicle as the user approaches the vehicle.” (Examiner’s Answer, p. 5.) For at least this reason, the relevant claims are allowable. While Guttman describes that the card reader does the unlocking and communicates with the central reservation system, the central reservation system fails to ever show that it is configured to “remotely unlock the vehicle[”] as the claims require. The claims require that a remote object unlock the vehicle (e.g. a server) but Guttman requires that the key card unlock the vehicle, as the vehicle does not unlock until the key card is near the vehicle. The Specification also distinguishes between local unlocking and remote unlocking: The door lock/unlock may be local access only when returned or returned. Additionally, remote locking and unlocking may be enabled when rented, however, the vehicle or server may communicate any change in status (e.g. was it enabled or disabled) when the vehicle has returned. (Specification at paragraph 41.) Reply Br. 1– 2. Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 11 and 13 is in error as they similarly recite remotely unlocking the vehicle. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 6 response to Appellant’s arguments on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer, which we have reviewed and concur with. Additionally, we note that Appellant’s arguments, cited above, are premised upon the recitation of the term “remote” to differentiate Gutmann’s teaching of unlocking the vehicle from the card reader “in the vicinity” of the vehicle or as the user approaches the vehicle. We do not find that the independent claims recite such a distinction. Appellant’s Specification does not define remote or provide bounds as to as to how far something needs to be to be considered remote, and we construe the term “remote” as merely meaning from a distance. Appellant’s Specification does discuss remote communication as being performed using Bluetooth and WiFi networks, which are both protocols for relative short distance wireless communication, thus suggesting that the remote communication may be with devices in close proximity. (See Spec. ¶¶ 21, 26). In the arguments cited above, Appellant acknowledge Gutmann’s teaches the card reader, which communicates with the car reservation system and vehicle computer system, may be in the vicinity of the vehicle. Further, Gutmann teaches that the card reader is used to unlock the vehicle. See Gutmann ¶ 55. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we consider Gutmann’s card reader to meet the claimed remote unlocking of the vehicle as it is unlocking the vehicle from a distance, as the Specification does not compel an interpretation of remote being a distance beyond “in the vicinity.” In as much as Appellant’s arguments on page 2 of the Reply Brief assert that the rejection is in error, arguing that Gutmann does not teach the central reservation system remotely unlocks the vehicle, we are not persuaded of error as the argument is not commensurate with the claim (the claims do not Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 7 recite the central reservation system unlocking the vehicle). Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 13, or dependent claims 3, 6, 10, 12, 14 through 18, and 22 which are grouped therewith. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 7 through 9, 19 through 21 and 23 are in err for the same reasons as claims 1, 11, and 13. Appeal Br. 7–8. As we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and 13, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7 through 9, 19 through 21 and 23. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21 112 (b) Indefiniteness 21 1, 3, 6, 10–18, 22 103 Gutmann, Iyer 1, 3, 6, 10–18, 22 7, 19 103 Gutmann, Iyer, Behr 7, 19 8, 9, 20 103 Gutmann, Iyer, Beaurepaire 8, 9, 20 21 103 Gutmann, Iyer and Lohmeier 21 23 103 Gutmann, Iyer, Lee 23 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 6–23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with Appeal 2019-002602 Application 14/589,749 8 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation