Myine Electronics, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 5, 20202019001343 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 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. 14/930,098 11/02/2015 Joel J. FISCHER 83578172 8866 28395 7590 05/05/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2020 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 JOEL J. FISCHER, JUSTIN DICKOW, COREY MAYLONE, JOHN BYRNE, SCOTT SMEREKA, and JOEY RAY GROVER __________________ Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–21. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Livio, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A system comprising: a processor of a vehicle configured with a transceiver and a key controller, programmed to, in response to detecting presence of both a physical vehicle key device via the key controller and a mobile device via the transceiver, the physical vehicle key device and the mobile device being separate physical devices, prompt via a user interface of the vehicle to pair the mobile device with the vehicle; and receive input at the user interface of the vehicle to associate the mobile device with a pre-approval setting, corresponding to a combination of the mobile device and the vehicle key device, for enabling a vehicle start request when both the mobile device and the vehicle key are detected. Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton (US 2013/0151111 A1, pub. June 13, 2013) and Pierfelice (US 8,933,782 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2015). Claims 2, 7, 10–13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton, Pierfelice, and Simmons (US 2015/0045013 A1, pub. Feb. 12, 2015). Claims 3, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton, Pierfelice, Simmons, and Ahmed (US 2015/ 0120402 A1, pub. Apr. 30, 2015). Claims 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton, Pierfelice, and Ahmed. Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 3 Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton, Pierfelice, and Ricci (US 2014/0309863 A1, pub. Oct. 16, 2014). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton, Pierfelice, Simmons, and Shearer (US 2011/0019825 A1, pub. Jan. 27, 2011). Claims 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton, Pierfelice, Simmons, and Ricci. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Skelton, Pierfelice, and Hatton (US 2015/0175127 A1, pub. June 25, 2015). ANALYSIS Claim 1 Rejected Over Skelton and Pierfelice The Examiner finds that Skelton teaches a system that receives input at a user interface of a vehicle to associate a mobile device and key to a pre- approval setting corresponding to the mobile device and a vehicle key for enabling a vehicle start request by entering a unique identifier in a vehicle interface. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Skelton uses a mobile device as a vehicle key and starts a vehicle by turning a key once the mobile device is coupled to the vehicle. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Skelton does not detect a physical key with a key controller as claimed, but Pierfelice teaches a vehicle mobile device connection system that detects the presence of a vehicle key device via a key controller and detects a mobile device via a transceiver and then prompts via a user interface of the vehicle to pair the mobile device with the vehicle. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also determines that it would have been obvious to combine these teachings of Pierfelice with the system of Skelton to increase the accuracy and reliability of Skelton’s wireless mobile device connection system. Id. Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 4 Appellant argues that “Skelton affirmatively lacks any disclosure or suggestion of detecting presence of multiple separate physical devices for the purpose of access.” Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues: Skelton does not disclose or suggest [ ] “detecting presence of both a physical vehicle key device via the key controller and a mobile device via the transceiver, the physical vehicle key device and the mobile device being separate physical devices” as recited by claim 1, let alone “enabling a vehicle start request when both the mobile device and the vehicle key are detected” as further recited in the context of claim 1. Id. Appellant asserts that the Examiner admits that Skelton is not explicit on the key device and mobile device being separate. Id. (citing Final Act. 3). We agree with the Examiner that Skelton uses a mobile device and a separate vehicle key to start a vehicle. Final Act. 3 (Skelton “enabl[es] a vehicle start request when both the mobile device and the vehicle key are detected”). The Examiner explains this finding in the Answer (Ans. 3). Though Skelton is not explicit [as to] a key controller detecting a physical key, Skelton not only discloses that the mobile device may be used as a vehicle key, in paragraph [0082], Skelton also disclose[s] once the mobile device is coupled to the vehicle, then the ignition switch would be in an active state, such that turning of the key would start the vehicle. Therefore, Skelton discloses multiple elements being required to start the vehicle, yet Skelton is only explicit on detecting the mobile device. Skelton detects a mobile device both when it is used as a key and when it is used with a vehicle key. Skelton ¶¶ 77, 82. Skelton detects the mobile device when “mobile device 740 is coupled to the module 720” and then places the ignition switch in an active state 730 so that the turning of a separate key by an operator starts the vehicle. Id. ¶ 82. Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 5 Thus, Skelton uses a mobile device and a separate, physical key in combination to start a vehicle. However, Skelton does not describe the key as being “detected” when it is placed in the ignition and turned to start the vehicle. See id. Nor does Skelton describe the key as being detected “via the key controller” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3. Because Skelton does not detect a vehicle key via a key controller (Ans. 3; Final Act. 3), the Examiner looks to Pierfelice for this teaching. Pierfelice teaches a similar vehicle mobile device control system 100 that uses controller 120 and sensor 110 to detect a separate vehicle key, which may be a key fob 410 (Fig. 4A). Pierfelice, 3:44–4:32. Sensor 110 senses via sensing process 134 mobile device 142 of driver 140. Id. at 4:6–32. Appellant does not dispute that Pierfelice detects a driver’s mobile device and a separate identity device 130 that may be an electronic key fob. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant argues generally that Pierfelice fails to “receive input at the user interface of the vehicle to associate the mobile device with a pre-approval setting, corresponding to a combination of the mobile device and the vehicle key, for enabling a vehicle start request when both the mobile device and the vehicle key are detected” as claimed. Id. at 7. This argument amounts to an individual attack on the references. The Examiner correctly finds that Skelton teaches a prompt via a user interface in response to detecting the presence of a mobile device to pair the mobile device with the vehicle and receiving input at the user interface to associate the mobile device with a pre-approval setting corresponding to the mobile device to enable a vehicle start request as claimed. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. Coupling of a mobile device combined with entering a unique identifier in a vehicle interface of the vehicle allows a vehicle to be started. Skelton ¶ 77. Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 6 The Examiner also correctly finds that entry of the unique identifier into a vehicle interface such as a navigation system, keypad or the like, is based on a pre-approval setting of a unique identifier that previously was entered into the system as Skelton teaches. Id. (“If the identifier matches with one in the system, then the vehicle may be started at a step 430.”); Ans. 4 (citing Skelton ¶ 77 and its teaching that the vehicle may be started if the unique identifier entered into an interface matches with one in the system). Skelton thus performs these claimed actions in response to detecting a mobile device. Skelton prompts a driver to enter a unique identifier into a vehicle user interface when a mobile device is coupled/detected. Skelton ¶ 77. Skelton also enables a vehicle start request if the unique identifier is associated with (matches) a pre-approval setting identifier for the device. Id. In response, Appellant argues that Skelton’s input and user interface are not used to associate the mobile device with a pre-approval setting that corresponds to a combination of the mobile device and the vehicle key. See Appeal Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive because Skelton detects the coupling of a mobile device to a vehicle to enable starting of a vehicle either when the mobile device is used as a key or when a separate key is used to start the vehicle. Skelton ¶¶ 77–85. Pierfelice teaches a similar system that detects a mobile device via sensor 110 and a separate vehicle key fob 410 via a controller 120, as claimed, to associate the mobile device with a pre- approval setting that pairs the key fob and mobile device in combination, as claimed. Pierfelice, 3:13–4:59; 7:27–8:42; Ans. 5–6. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to combine Pierfelice’s teachings with Skelton’s system to increase the accuracy and reliability of Skelton’s system. Final Act. 3 (citing Pierfelice 1:29–61). Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 7 Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or determination of obviousness. See Appeal Br. 5–7. Pierfelice teaches the advantages of using a separate vehicle key fob paired in combination with a driver’s mobile device via a pre-approval setting so detection of the fob and associated mobile device allows the mobile device to be used with a vehicle input-output interface and the key to start the vehicle. Pierfelice, 3:30–4:59. The key fob identifies an associated mobile device and links it to a vehicle and pre-approval settings. Id.; id. at 1:29–2:16; see Final Act. 3. Skelton’s system starts a vehicle using a pre-approved mobile device and vehicle key or with input of a preset unique identifier. Pierfelice improves Skelton’s system by pairing a mobile device and a key fob using pre-approval settings that identify a driver and associate their mobile device with vehicle settings. Like Skelton’s pre-approval setting of a unique identifier, Pierfelice’s controller 120 associates a mobile device and a key fob via an initial pairing process of these two physical devices and a recording of that association in controller 120. See Pierfelice, 4:20–32. The Examiner proposes to improve Skelton’s system by associating a physical key fob with a mobile device, as taught by Pierfelice, to identify the driver and enable a vehicle start when a unique identification number is input via a user interface as Skelton teaches. Skelton also couples a mobile device to a module 720 to activate an ignition switch and enable a vehicle key to start a vehicle engine. Skelton ¶ 82. The Examiner proposes to modify Skelton’s key to be a key fob that identifies an associated mobile device, as Pierfelice teaches, to identify the driver with a mobile device that is coupled to a vehicle system to control vehicle systems, which, in the case of Skelton’s system, would enable starting the vehicle. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 8 Claims 2, 7, 10–13, and 17 Rejected over Skelton, Pierfelice, and Simmons Independent claim 10 recites a driver authorization method that relies on recognizing the presence of a physical vehicle key authorized to start a disabled powertrain and detecting the presence of a mobile device that was previously-paired with the key and confirming the mobile device is free of vehicle start restrictions using a vehicle user interface. Appeal Br. A-2. Independent claim 17 recites a computer-program product that prompts via a vehicle user interface to pair a mobile device using a password and associating the mobile device with a start-approval setting via a vehicle user interface and corresponding to a combination of a physical vehicle key and the mobile device to implement a vehicle start request. Id. at A-3. The Examiner relies on Skelton to teach enabling a powertrain in response to detecting the presence of a previously-paired mobile device and confirming that the previously-paired mobile device is free of vehicle start restrictions in combination with a vehicle physical key. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Pierfelice to teach the pairing of a separate vehicle key and a previously paired mobile device. Id. at 5. The Examiner relies on Simmons to teach the details of a previously-paired device. Id. Appellant argues that claims 10 and 17 are patentable for the reasons argued for claim 1, namely, that the combination does not teach or suggest the claimed actions for a combination of a physical key and a mobile device. Appeal Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed previously for claim 1. Appellant also argues that Simmons does not enable a powertrain responsive to detecting a mobile device as recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 9 This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner cites Skelton to teach this feature. Final Act. 4–5; see Ans. 7. Skelton’s system detects the presence of a mobile device when it is coupled to the system and enables the vehicle powertrain to start, e.g., by turning a key in the ignition and/or by entering a preset, unique identifier. Skelton ¶¶ 77, 82. Skelton checks start restrictions on the vehicle when the mobile device is coupled to the system as well. See id. ¶¶ 74–76. Thus, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 10 and claim 17, which is not argued separately apart from relying on arguments presented for claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7, and 11–13, which are not argued separately by Appellant. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rejections of Dependent Claims 3–6, 8, 9, 14–16, and 18–21 Appellant argues that claims 3–6, 8, 9, 14–16, and 18–21 depend from one of independent claims 1, 10, and 17, and are allowable “at least for the reasons discussed above” for those claims. Appeal Br. 9–11. Because we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 17, these arguments are not persuasive, and we also sustain the rejections of these claims. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Skelton, Pierfelice 1 2, 7, 10–13, 17 103 Skelton, Pierfelice, Simmons 2, 7, 10– 13, 17 3, 14, 18, 19 103 Skelton, Pierfelice, Simmons, Ahmed 3, 14, 18, 19 4, 5, 9 103 Skelton, Pierfelice, Ahmed 4, 5, 9 Appeal 2019-001343 Application 14/930,098 10 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 6 103 Skelton, Pierfelice, Ricci 6 8 103 Skelton, Pierfelice, Simmons, Shearer 8 15, 16, 20 103 Skelton, Pierfelice, Simmons, Ricci 15, 16, 20 21 103 Skelton, Pierfelice, Hatton 21 Overall Summary 1–21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation