13423143 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

Ex Parte Ferguson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2017

13423143 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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. 13/423,143 03/16/2012 David I. Ferguson 12-098 5126 145835 7590 04/27/2017 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/Waymo 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER HILGENDORF, DALE W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2017 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 DAVID I. FERGUSON and JIAJUN ZHU Appeal 2015-000742 Application 13/423,143 Technology Center 3600 Before JILL D. HILL, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David I. Ferguson and Jiajun Zhu (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-000742 Application 13/423,143 BACKGROUND Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are pending. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention. 1. A method comprising: causing a sensor in an autonomous vehicle to sense information about an environment in a first field of view, wherein a portion of the environment is obscured in the first field of view; determining a desired field of view in which the portion of the environment is not obscured; based on the desired field of view and a set of constraints for the vehicle, determining a second field of view in which the portion of the environment is less obscured than in the first field of view; in response to determining the second field of view, modifying the sensor’s field of view from the first field of view to the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is an improved field of view of the sensor, and wherein modifying the sensor’s field of view comprises modifying a position of the vehicle; and causing the sensor to sense information in the second field of view. REJECTION I. Claims 1—4, 8—15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi (US 2009/0237269 Al, pub. Sept. 24, 2009) and Matsumoto (US 2007/0100498 Al, pub. May 3, 2007). Final Act. 3. II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi, Matsumoto, and Bergholz (US 6,151,539, iss. Nov. 21, 2000). Final Act. 15. 2 Appeal 2015-000742 Application 13/423,143 III. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi, Matsumoto, and Maeda (US 7,598,889 B2, iss. Oct. 6, 2009). Final Act. 15. IV. Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi, Matsumoto, and Demirdjian (US 2012/0218125 Al, pub. Aug. 30, 2012). Final Act. 16. OPINION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Okugi discloses, inter alia, (1) determining a desired field of view in which a portion of the environment is not obscured, (2) based on the desired field of view and a set of constraints, determining a second field of view in which the portion of the environment is less obscured, and, (3) in response to determining the second field of view, modifying the sensor’s field of view from the first field of view to the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is an improved field of view of the sensor. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Okugi does not disclose that modifying the sensor’s field of view comprises modifying a position of the vehicle, but finds that Matsumoto discloses modifying the sensor’s field of view by modifying a vehicle position. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Okugi’s combined real and imaginary images create the claimed “second field of view” of the sensor, because Okugi’s combined display is not a field of view of a sensor. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Okugi’s imaginary image is created based on past sensor information regarding a moving 3 Appeal 2015-000742 Application 13/423,143 object, and “[mjerely adding an imaginary image [] to a ‘real image captured by the cameras’ does not change the field of view of the cameras.” Id. The ordinary meaning of the term “field of view” is “the area that is visible (as through an optical instrument).” https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/field%20of%20view (last visited April 14, 2017). This meaning is consistent with the term’s use in Appellants’ Specification. Thus, a field of view of a sensor is an area visible to the sensor, and therefore not the same as a combined display as proposed by the Examiner. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that a new field of view of a sensor can be created by combining a current sensor field of view with information from a sensor’s previous field of view. The Examiner’s finding regarding the second field of view is, therefore, in error, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-4, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1 and are, therefore, allowable for the same reason. Similar to claim 1, claim 10 recites “based on the desired field of view and a set of constraints for the vehicle, determine a second field of view.” For the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. Claims 11—15 and 17 depend from claim 10 and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection of those claims for the same reason. Claim 18 similarly recites “based on the desired field of view and a set of constraints for the vehicle, determining a second field of view.” For the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18. Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18 and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection of those claims for the same reason. 4 Appeal 2015-000742 Application 13/423,143 Rejections II—IV Claims 5—7 and 16, which are subject to Rejections II—IV, each depend from one of independent claims 1 or 10. The Examiner makes no finding that any of Bergholz, Maeda, or Demirdjian disclose the claimed second field of view. We, therefore, do not sustain Rejections II—IV. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—4, 8—15, and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi and Matsumoto. We REVERSE the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi, Matsumoto, and Bergholz. We REVERSE the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi, Matsumoto, and Maeda. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okugi, Matsumoto, and Demirdjian. REVERSED 5