Ex Parte Filev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13063377 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/063,377 03/10/2011
28395 7590 08/15/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dimitar Petrov Filev
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.
83177049 2251
EXAMINER
BURGDORF, STEPHEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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 DIMITAR PETROV FILEV, JIANBO LU,
KWAKU 0. PRAKAH-ASANTE, and FLING TSENG
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
Technology Center 2600
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-19, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to vehicle electronic control systems. Spec.
4:1-5.
Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative of the invention and are reproduced
below:
1. A vehicle comprising:
at least one of an electronic stability control system, anti-
lock braking system and traction control system;
a plurality of sensors configured to measure parameters
representing the vehicle's current handling condition and the
vehicle's limit handling condition, wherein each of the
parameters has upper and lower deadband thresholds defining a
deadband interval within which the measured parameter may fall
without the at least one electronic stability control system, anti-
lock braking system and traction control system being activated;
and
at least one computing device operatively arranged with
the sensors and configured (i) to determine, for each of the
parameters, a normalized difference between the parameter and
at least one of the parameter's upper and lower deadband
thresholds, (ii) to identify a minimum of the normalized
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed September 30, 2014), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 2,
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 30, 2014) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 30, 2013).
2 Claims 15 and 16 were cancelled previously.
2
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
differences, and (iii) to initiate an alert for a driver of the vehicle
if the minimum of the normalized differences exceeds a
predetermined threshold within the deadband interval.
6. A method for advising a driver of a vehicle
compnsmg:
measuring a plurality of parameters representing the
vehicle's current and limit handling conditions;
determining a margin between the vehicle's current and
limit handling conditions;
characterizing a driver's dynamic control of the vehicle
based on the margin; and
initiating an alert before the vehicle achieves the limit
handling condition if the margin exceeds a predetermined
threshold selected according to the characterization.
Doerr et al. ("Doerr")
Yuda et al. ("Yuda")
Lu et al . ("Lu")
Grossman ("Grossman")
Soderkvist ("Soderkvist")
REFERENCES
US 2006/0097570 Al
US 2006/0208564 Al
US 2008/0147277 Al
US 2009/0146846 Al
US 7 ,902,972 B2
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
May 11, 2006
Sept. 21, 2006
June 19, 2008
June 11, 20093
Mar. 8, 2011 4
Claims 1--4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Lu, Yuda, and Grossman. Final Act. 2-10;
Ans. 2-9.
3 Application filed December 10, 2007.
4 Application filed June 21, 2005; provisional Application filed July 8, 2004.
3
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Lu, Yuda, Grossman, and Soderkvist. Final Act.
10-12; Ans. 10-11.
Claims 6, 11, 12, 14, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lu and Yuda. Final Act. 12-19;
Ans. 11-17.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Lu, Yuda, and Doerr. Final Act. 19-20; Ans. 17-18.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lu, Yuda, and
Grossman teaches, "identify[ing] a minimum of the normalized differences,"
as required in independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lu and Yuda
teaches initiating an alert before a vehicle reaches its limit handling
condition when a predetermined margin between a measured parameter and
its threshold is exceeded, as required in independent claims 6 and 17?
Did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine Lu and Yuda to
reject independent claims 6 and 1 7?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5
Independent claim 1 requires "identify[ ing] a minimum of the
normalized differences," wherein a normalized difference is determined
"between the parameter and at least one of the parameter's upper and lower
deadband thresholds." Claims 2-5 are dependent upon independent claim 1.
4
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
The Examiner finds that the combination of Lu, Yuda, and Grossman
teaches each limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 2-6; Ans. 19-20. However,
the Examiner finds that Yuda, specifically, teaches a calculated yaw rate
deviation that reads on the disputed limitation, recited above. Final Act. 4-5
(citing Yuda iii! 37-39, 60-65; Figs. 5, 6); Ans. 19-20 (citing Yuda iii! 54-
65).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding is in error. App. Br. 4-
5; Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants contend that none of the references
teaches the required identification of a "minimum of normalized differences"
(emphasis added). App. Br. 5. We agree with Appellants.
The section of Yuda cited by the Examiner calculates yaw rate
deviation, G, which demonstrates the degree ofundersteer in a vehicle.
Yuda iJ 37. Yuda normalizes the yaw rate deviation value based upon the
vehicle's speed to find Goff, or yaw rate deviation after offset. See id. iii! 38-
39. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 4-5) that
Yuda teaches a normalized rate. However, the Examiner fails to show or
describe how this single normalized rate relates to the claimed "minimum"
of normalized differences.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-5. Because this issue is
dispositive for claims 1-5, we need not reach the remaining arguments
asserted by Appellants. App. Br. 4-5.
5
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
Claim 65
Claim 6 recites "initiating an alert before the vehicle achieves the
limit handling condition if the margin exceeds a predetermined threshold
selected according to the characterization." The Examiner finds that the
combination of Lu and Yuda teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 13-
14, 1 7-18. Specifically, the Examiner finds Yuda teaches the initiation of a
skid prevention brake control after threshold Th3 is exceeded, wherein Th3 is
the limit handling condition. Id. However, the Examiner finds that, in
Yuda, before Th3 is reached, a warning is issued when another
predetermined threshold, Th2, is exceeded. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds
that an alert is issued prior to the limit handling condition being reached, as
claimed. Id.
Appellants argue that the alert issued in Yuda is given after the
vehicle reaches its limit handling condition because the yaw rate deviation
reaction force control, which serves to correct under-steer, is engaged prior
to the issuance of an under-steer warning. App. Br. 4, 6; Reply Br. 2.
Therefore, Appellants contend that Yuda fails to teach the disputed
limitation. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2.
Although Appellants are correct that a yaw rate deviation reaction
force control is initiated, after Th1 is exceeded, we do not find Appellants'
arguments persuasive. The claims do not require initiating an alert prior to
every limit handling condition, nor do the claims preclude activating a
control system after a threshold is exceeded and then initiating an alert prior
5 Appellants contend that claim 6 is patentable for the same reasons as claim
1. App. Br. 6. We reversed the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
limitations not found in claim 6. However, we will refer to Appellants'
claim 1 arguments that are directed toward the limitations found in claim 6.
6
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
to activating another or the same control system. Thus, even though Yuda
fails to teach a warning prior to the yaw rate deviation reaction force control
initiation, we find that Yuda still teaches the disputed limitation because
Yuda teaches issuing a warning after a threshold is reached but prior to
initiating and exceeding the limit for the skid prevention brake control.
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner fails to provide
sufficient motivation to combine Lu and Yuda. App. Br. 5. Specifically,
Appellants contend that each of the references already accounts for changes
in vehicle behavior, allows a driver to react manually, and issues warnings;
therefore, the Examiner cannot rely on the absence of these teachings or
conclusory statements to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive.
The Examiner finds Lu teaches an active safety control system for a
vehicle that uses a plurality of sensors coupled with an actuation system to
warn a driver of an unsafe operating condition, and if the driver's response
to the warning is insufficient, the system takes corrective action through the
vehicle's electronic stability control, anti-lock braking system, and traction
control. Final Act. 12-19 (citing Lu ,-i,-i 6, 25-28, 61-66, Figs. 8-9); Ans. 2-
4. As set forth above, the Examiner also finds Yuda teaches an under-steer
warning system that alerts the driver prior to engaging skid prevention brake
control. Final Act. 13-14 (citing Yuda ,-i,-i 54-65, Fig. 6); Ans. 19-23. We
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lu and Yuda would have
been nothing more than a combination of familiar elements according to
known methods that yield predictable results, and that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references in the
manner proposed to "account for changes in vehicle behavior related to
7
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
speed in the determination of a perturbed state, allowing the driver to
manually react prior to safety measure activation." See Final Act. 6.
Accordingly, the Examiner has provided an articulated reasoning supported
with rational underpinnings for combining Lu and Yuda, and Appellants
have not explained sufficiently why that reasoning is incorrect. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we do not find
that the Examiner improperly combines Lu and Yuda.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 6.
Claims 7-9
Appellants indicate in the Appeal Brief on page 1 that claims 7-9 are
subject to this appeal. However, we do not find any discussion of these
claims in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. Thus, because we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 6 from which claims 7-9 depend
from, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Claims 10-14
Appellants argue that claims 10-14 are patentable because they
depend from claim 6. App. Br. 6-7. As indicated above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 6. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 10-14 for the same reasons indicated above with respect
to claim 6.
Claims 17 -19
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 17-19 as
with claim 1 and as addressed in the rejection of claim 6. App. Br. 6. As
indicated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6. Therefore,
8
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-19 for the same
reasons indicated above with respect to claim 6.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lu, Yuda, and
Grossman teaches "identify[ing] a minimum of the normalized differences"
between a measured parameter and its upper and lower thresholds, as
required in independent claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Lu and Yuda
teaches initiating an alert before a vehicle reaches its limit handling
condition when a predetermined margin between a measured parameter and
its threshold is exceeded, as required in independent claims 6 and 17.
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Lu and
Yuda to reject independent claims 6 and 17.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lu, Yuda, and Grossman is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Lu, Yuda, Grossman, and Soderkvist is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lu, Yuda, and Grossman is
affirmed.
9
Appeal2015-000511
Application 13/063,377
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Lu, Yuda, Grossman, and Soderkvist is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6, 11, 12, 14, and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lu and Yuda is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Lu, Yuda, and Doerr is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10