Ex Parte Elwart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2018

14482307 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/482,307 09/10/2014
117396 7590 07/13/2018
FG1L/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shane Elwart
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.
83414177 1069
EXAMINER
WORDEN, THOMAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2018 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
Exparte SHANE ELWART and SUDIPTO AICH 1
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shane Elwart and Sudipto Aich (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is indicated as the "real party in interest"
and is also the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appeal Brief 1
(hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed Feb. 21, 2017).
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates generally to a park assist system
and, more particularly, to an automatic parking system that learns and stores
previous locations." Spec. ,r 3, Figs. 1, 5. Appellants' parking system
assists in the situation "[ w ]hen returning to the same location the driver may
want to recreate the previous speed profile used to park the vehicle." Id. at
,r 7, Fig. 6A. Claims 1 and 16 are independent.
Claims 1 and 16 are representative of the claimed subject matter and
recite:
1. A parking system used with a vehicle comprising:
a park assist system, said park assist system operative to
perform a parking maneuver at a geographic location; and
an activation system, including an activation system
controller including an a microcomputer in communication with
the park assist system, wherein said activation system activates
and controls the park assist system during the parking maneuver
at the geographic location based on a drive history profile
associated with the geographic location.
16. A method of usmg a parking system in a vehicle
comprising the steps of:
using a park assist system to assist in parking a vehicle
during a parking maneuver at a geographic location;
activating the park assist system at the geographic location
based on a drive history profile associated with the geographic
location; and
controlling the vehicle speed during the parking maneuver
at the geographic location based on the drive history profile
associated with the geographic location.
2
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
THE REJECTIONS 2
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a) as anticipated by Filev (US 2014/0303839 Al, published Oct. 9,
2014).
II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Filev and Tate (US 2014/0074352 Al, published Mar. 13, 2014).
III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Filev and McMahon (US 7,005,974 B2, issued Feb. 28, 2006).
IV. Claims 6-9 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Filev and Toledo (US 2011/0080304 Al, published Apr.
7, 2011).
V. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Filev and Ricci (US 2014/0310075 Al, published Oct. 16, 2014).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I -Anticipation by Filev
Claims 1 and 2
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claim 2
separate from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 3--4; see
also Reply Br. 1-3. 3 We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and
claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Filev, Tate, and McMahon. See Examiner's Answer 2
(hereinafter "Ans.") (dated Apr. 27, 2017); see also Final Office Action 15-
16 (hereinafter "Final Act.") (dated June 20, 2016).
3 Reply Brief (hereinafter "Reply Br.") (filed June 27, 2017).
3
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
Claim 1 is directed to a parking system having a "park assist system
operative to perform a parking maneuver at a geographic location," and an
"activation system [that] activates and controls the park assist system during
the parking maneuver at the geographic location based on a drive history
profile associated with the geographic location." Appeal Br. 16, Claims
App. The Examiner finds that Filev discloses a parking system having an
activation system that activates and controls a park assist system during a
parking maneuver at a geographic location based on a drive history profile
associated with the geographic location. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Filev, ,r,r 27,
37,38).
Appellants contend that "Filev does not activate or control the park
assist system during the parking maneuver." Appeal Br. 4. More
particularly, Appellants contend that "[p ]aragraph 21 contains no disclosure
wherein the activation system controls the park assist system based on a
drive history profile associated with the location." Id. Appellants further
contend that "[ t ]he Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure of Filev
wherein the selectable option displayed on the user interface device controls
the park assist system during the parking maneuver at the geographic
location based on a drive history profile associated with the geographic
location." Reply Br. 3.
To the extent that Appellants are arguing that Filev does not disclose
controlling a park assist system based on a "drive history profile associated
with the geographic location," we disagree. Claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Acad. Of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although the
Specification discloses that "preconditions may include a previous drive
4
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
history profile that includes a speed profile for an active park assist system,
or a speed profile and trailer backup steering profile for a trailer backup
assist system," the Specification does not define "drive history profile" such
that the claim term is so limited. See Spec., ,r 24; see also Spec., generally.
An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "profile" is "a set of
data often in graphic form portraying the significant features of something. "4
Filev discloses that: (1) "[t]he contextual module 120, 125 may use the end
location to look up the type of the features previously selected by the user
when at the end location" (Filev, ,r 37); (2) "[t]he module may be capable of
learning and recoding various stop and start habits and frequency locations
may be recognized inherently without user input" (id. at ,r 38); and (3)
"[ t ]hese historical parking locations may be identified by a user indicated
within the data store 130 as described herein" (id.). Thus, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the Examiner
correctly finds that Filev discloses controlling a park assist system based on
a "drive history profile associated with the geographic location." See Final
Act. 3.
In regard to the claimed limitation of an "activation system" that
"activates and controls the park assist system during the parking maneuver,"
as the Examiner points out in the Answer, "the citation to Paragraph 21 of
Filev was used to disclose the 'park assist option', which was equivalent to
the claimed 'park assist system' rather than the activation system. Instead,
4 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profile (last visited June
15, 2018).
5
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
[the] Examiner cited to Paragraph 27 ofFilev to disclose the activation
system." Ans. 2.
Filev discloses a "controller 110 may be configured to control the
availability of a feature on the user interface device 105 through the
processor 115," and "a user may select a selectable option pertaining to a
driver assist technology. This selection may control a park assist feature, as
well as enable certain rear view cameras to be activated." Filev, ,r 27; see
also Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. The Examiner explains that "[s]o in terms of
equivalent structure, the user's use of user interface 105 on a selectable
feature displayed on the user interface 105 is actually the activation system
(which may control a park assist feature and/or rear view mirrors)." Ans. 2-
3. We further note that claim 1 recites nothing as to a "selectable option
displayed on the user interface device" that controls the park assist system.
See Reply Br. 3; Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.; In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344
( CCP A 1982) (Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability). Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the findings
of the Examiner.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as anticipated by Filev.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
by Filev. We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2, which falls
with claim 1.
6
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
Claims 3, 5, 10-13, and 15-17
Independent claim 16 is directed to a "method of using a parking
system in a vehicle comprising the steps of[] using a park assist system to
assist in parking a vehicle during a parking maneuver at a geographic
location" and "controlling the vehicle speed during the parking maneuver at
the geographic location based on [a] drive history profile associated with the
geographic location." Appeal Br. 20, Claims App. Claim 17 depends from
16. Id.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites "an active park assist
system ... with a plurality of vehicle system modules to control the vehicle
speed during the parking maneuver at the geographic location based on the
drive history profile associated with the geographic location." Id. at 16.
Claims 10-13 and 15 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 3. Id.
at 18-20.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites "a drive history data
acquisition system that records vehicle input parameters measured during the
parking maneuver including drive history data based on the location data
sensed from the location sensor and speed data from the speed sensor." Id.
at 17.
The Examiner finds that Filev discloses the claimed limitation
"controlling the vehicle speed during the parking maneuver a[t] the
geographic location based on the drive history profile associated with the
geographic location" because Filev discloses that "'[t]he park assist option,
when selected, may automatically assist drivers in parking their vehicles.
That is, the vehicle can steer itself into a parking space, whether parallel or
perpendicular parking, with little to no input from the user."' Final Act. 5
7
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
( citing Filev, ,r 21 ); see also id. at 6. The Examiner also points out that Filev
discloses that "'the contextual module 120 for vehicle's speed in relation to
current speed limit will always output that context, although the context may
be received by different selectable options ..... For example, the parking
assist feature may not be functional/selectable unless the vehicles speed is
below 10 miles per hour."' Final Act. 6 (citing Filev, ,r 29); see also id. at 7
( citing Filev, ,r 29). The Examiner notes that Filev discloses that "the
processor 315 may take the product of the variables output by the first
contextual module 320, the second contextual module 325, and the vehicle
speed sensor 345 to generate the feature score for the selectable options."
Id. at 7 (citing Filev, ,r 63); see also Ans. 4--9.
Appellants contend that "Filev does not disclose controlling the
vehicle speed during the parking maneuver at the geographic location based
on the drive history profile associated with the geographic location." Appeal
Br. 5; see also id. at 6-7.
Filev discloses that the vehicle speed determines whether the parking
assist feature may or may not be functional or selectable. Filev, ,r 29. Stated
differently, Filev utilizes the speed obtained from sensors to determine if the
vehicle is traveling too fast to utilize its park assist system for automatic
parking. Paragraph 21 ofFilev, which the Examiner cites to, at best
discloses providing a predetermined speed for the vehicle during a parking
maneuver because "the vehicle can steer itself into a parking space, ... with
little to no input from the user." Id. at ,r 21. Filev does not utilize a vehicle
speed of a prior parking maneuver at a location to control a vehicle speed for
a current parking maneuver at the same location. Consequently, the
Examiner incorrectly finds that Filev discloses "controlling the vehicle speed
8
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
during the parking maneuver at the geographic location based on the drive
history profile associated with the geographic location," as required for
claim 16 and as similarly required for claim 3. See Appeal Br. 16, 20
Claims App. Furthermore, Filev is silent regarding recording vehicle input
parameters "during the parking maneuver including drive history data based
on the location data sensed from the location sensor and speed data from the
speed sensor," as required for claim 5. See id. at 17 ( emphasis added).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 3, 5, 10-13, and 15-17 as anticipated by Filev.
Rejection II - Obviousness over Filev and Tate
Alternatively, in rejecting claim 3, the Examiner finds that "Tate also
teaches a park assist system that controls the vehicle speed during the
parking maneuver at the geographic location based on the drive history
profile associated with the geographic location" because Tate discloses that
"[i]fthe vehicle speed signal is less than a threshold value (e.g., generally
below about 8 kph or 5 mph), this is an indication that the vehicle 18 may be
travelling slowly enough to be parked" and that "'the park assist control
module 30 may be continuously recording data during a drive cycle. The
park assist control module 30 stores a portion of the data at the end of the
drive cycle (e.g., during a park event)."' Final Act. 13-14 (citing Tate, ,r,r
23, 25); see also Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that "Tate does not disclose controlling the
vehicle speed during the parking maneuver at the geographic location based
on the drive history profile associated with the geographic location." Appeal
Br. 9.
9
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
Similar to Filev, Tate discloses that the vehicle speed determines
whether a parking assist feature may or may not be functional or selectable.
Tate, ,r 25 ("Once the park assist control module 30 determines that the
vehicle 18 is within the specified proximity of the specific geographical
location, then the park assist control module 30 may monitor the vehicle bus
44 to receive a vehicle speed signal."). Tate is also silent regarding recalling
information based on a geographic location to assist in parking at a later
time. Consequently, the Examiner incorrectly finds that Tate discloses "an
active park assist system ... with a plurality of vehicle system modules to
control the vehicle speed during the parking maneuver at the geographic
location based on the drive history profile associated with the geographic
location." See Final Act. 13-14; see also Ans. 5; Appeal Br. 16, Claims
App.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
3 as unpatentable over Filev and Tate.
Rejection III - Obviousness over Filev and McMahon
Claim 4 recites
a trailer backup assist system having a control module including
a trailer backup assist microcomputer that bi-directionally
communicates with the activation system controller and with a
plurality of vehicle system modules to control the vehicle speed
and trailer backup steering control during the parking maneuver
at the geographic location based on the drive history profile
associated with the geographic location.
Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. The Examiner acknowledges that "Filev
remains silent in that the parking assist system disclose[ d] is specifically a
10
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
trailer backup assist system." Final Act. 15. According to the Examiner,
McMahon discloses a trailer backup assist system because "McMahon
teaches a vehicle imaging system specifically suited for use during a trailer
hitching operation (see Column 1 Lines 57-59)." Id.
We agree with Appellants that "McMahon does not disclose a trailer
backup assist system," as claimed. Appeal Br. 10. McMahon discloses that
"[t]he present invention is especially suitable for use during a trailer hitching
operation, where the vehicle is moved toward a trailer for connection
thereto." McMahon, col. 1, 11. 57-59. As Appellants point out, McMahon
discloses that "[ t ]he display of the present invention provides a general
representation of the hitch of the vehicle and the hitch of the trailer as lines
in the display, whereby the driver may control or maneuver the vehicle to
align the lines or icons with one another." Id. at col. 1, 11. 61---65; see also
Appeal Br. 10. A display for use during a trailer hitching operation cannot
reasonably be said to be a "a trailer backup assist system having a control
module including a trailer backup assist microcomputer that bi-directionally
communicates with the activation system controller," as claimed because a
trailer is not being backed up in McMahon's vehicle imaging system. See
Appeal Br. 17, Claims App; see also Appeal Br. 10. As such, the Examiner
fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that McMahon
discloses the claimed trailer backup assist system.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
4 as unpatentable over Filev and McMahon.
11
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
Rejection IV - Obviousness over Filev and Toledo
Claims 6-9 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 5 and
claims 18-20 depend indirectly from claim 16. Appeal Br. 18, 21, Claims
App. The Examiner's rejection of these dependent claims relies on the same
unsupported findings discussed above for claims 5 and 16. Final Act. 16-
17. The Examiner does not rely on Toledo to cure the deficiencies of Filev.
Id. Accordingly, for similar reasons as discussed above, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 6-9 and 18-20 as unpatentable over Filev
and Toledo.
Rejection V - Obviousness over Filev and Ricci
Claim 14 depends indirectly from claim 3. Appeal Br. 20, Claims
App. The Examiner's rejection of claim 14 relies on the same unsupported
findings discussed above for claim 3. Final Act. 17-19. The Examiner does
not rely on Ricci to cure the deficiencies of Filev. Id. Accordingly, for
similar reasons as discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over Filev and Ricci.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 2 as
anticipated by Filev.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 5, 10-
13, and 15-17 as anticipated by Filev.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 3 as
unpatentable over Filev and Tate.
12
Appeal2017-009524
Application 14/482,307
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 4 as
unpatentable over Filev and McMahon.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-9 and
18-20 as unpatentable over Filev and Toledo.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 14 as
unpatentable over Filev and Ricci.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13