Ford Global Technologies, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 202015499306 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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. 15/499,306 04/27/2017 Muhammad Adeel Awan 83796848 5597 117396 7590 05/20/2020 FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC P.O. Box 214320 Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320 EXAMINER TO, TUAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2020 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 MUHAMMAD ADEEL AWAN, FRANK PETER ENGELS, MOHSEN LAKEEHAL-AYAT, and UWE HOFFMAN Appeal 2019-006312 Application 15/499,306 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, 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 1–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006312 Application 15/499,306 2 According to Appellant, “[t]he invention relates to a system and method for controlling a vehicle steering system.” Spec. ¶ 3. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A vehicle steering system comprising: an actuator applying a force to the steering system; a detection unit obtaining a surface condition of a surface section located ahead of a vehicle in a direction of vehicle travel and subsequently driven on by said vehicle; and a data processing unit connected to and communicating with the detection unit, said data processing unit generating a control signal for controlling the actuator based on the detected surface condition. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–14, 16,2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Higashira3; and II. Claim 4, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Higashira and Hartmann.4 ANALYSIS Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–14, 16, and 17 As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a detection unit obtaining a surface condition of a surface section located ahead of a vehicle.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Based on our review, we 2 The Examiner erroneously refers to claim 16 as “claim 18” when summarizing the rejection. See Answer 4–5. 3 Higashira et al., US 5,908,457, issued June 1, 1999 (“Higashira”). 4 Hartmann et al., US 2015/0371095 A1, published Dec. 24, 2015 (“Hartmann”). Appeal 2019-006312 Application 15/499,306 3 determine that the Examiner errs in relying on Higashira to disclose the detection unit, as claimed. See Appeal Br. 5–10; see also Reply Br. 1–3. In the Final Office Action’s rejection of claim 1, and in the rejection of claim 1 set forth in the Answer, the Examiner does not identify any portion of Higashira that discloses a detection unit obtaining a surface condition of a surface section located ahead of a vehicle. See Final Action 2–6; see Answer 4–6. It is in the Final Office Action’s Response to Arguments section where the Examiner addresses claim 1’s recitation that the detection unit obtains a surface condition of a surface section located ahead of a vehicle. There, the Examiner states that “the sensors described in Higashira have the capability of detecting the surface condition of a section located ahead of the vehicle.” Final Action 6. This statement is inadequate to support the rejection, however. For example, this statement does not cite any evidence and does not otherwise explain how any of Higashira’s sensors have the capability to detect the surface condition of a section located ahead of the vehicle, or why it would have been obvious to use any of Higashira’s sensors as claimed. In the Answer’s Response to Arguments section, the Examiner identifies, for the first time, a sensor that the Examiner indicates detects the surface condition of a section located ahead of the vehicle. Specifically, according to the Examiner, “at least . . . [Higashira’s] sensor 7d . . . detect[s] the unevenness of road surface on which the vehicle is running, which includes the surface section under the vehicle as the vehicle drives on, and the surface section located ahead.” Answer 9; see also id. at 12 (“It is quite understood, the road surface on which the vehicle is running is also a road Appeal 2019-006312 Application 15/499,306 4 surface located ahead of the vehicle.”). The Examiner particularly relies on Higashira’s column 7, lines 48–54, as disclosing using sensor 7d to detect the road surface on which the vehicle is running. The Examiner’s reliance on Higashira’s description of sensor 7d also is inadequate to support the rejection, however. First, there is no adequate basis for the Examiner’s determination that because Higashira teaches that “sensor 7d . . . detect[s] the unevenness of road surface on which the vehicle is running,” the detected road surface “includes the surface section under the vehicle as the vehicle drives on, and the surface section located ahead.” Answer 9. The Examiner does not cite any evidence, and does not present a line of reasoning adequate to support this determination. Further, the identified portion of Higashira does not disclose anything about detecting a surface ahead of the vehicle. Instead, this portion states only, in relevant part, that “supersonic wave sensor 7d . . . detect[s] the unevenness of the road surface by receiving the supersonic waves transmitted towards the road surface, which are the road surface condition detecting means for detecting the condition of the road surface on which the automobile is running.” Higashira col. 7, ll. 47–52 (emphasis added). Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 8 and 12, each of which includes a recitation similar to that discussed above. Still further, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 that depend from the independent claims. Appeal 2019-006312 Application 15/499,306 5 Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 4, 10, and 15 Claims 4, 10, and 15 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 12, respectively. The Examiner does not rely on Hartmann to disclose anything that would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in the independent claim’s rejection. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4, 10, and 15. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–17. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–9, 11–14, 16, 17 103 Higashira 1–3, 5–9, 11–14, 16, 17 4, 10, 15 103 Higashira, Hartmann 4, 10, 15 Overall Outcome 1–17 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation