Ex Parte Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14073908 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/073,908 11/07/2013
21364 7590 12/31/2018
US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN: RDRL-LOC-1
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI, MD 20783-1138
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Odell Johnson
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.
ARL 13-07 7155
EXAMINER
KIM,EUNHEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2018 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
Ex parte JEFFREY ODELL JOHNSON
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20. Br. 3. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the United States
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed March 30, 2017; the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.") mailed July 3,
2017; the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed August 28, 2017; and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed November 15, 2017.
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention optimizes a path through airspace, terrain, or
urban areas. Spec. ,r 13. To determine the best path, the invention considers
obstacles and "impact values." Id. For example, an impact value can
represent the level of adverse conditions at a particular location----e.g., threat
level, dust concentration, chemical concentration, water currents, weather
conditions, radiation levels, and terrain slopes and types. Id. ,r 16.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for path optimization comprising:
receiving model data, obstacle data and impact data
describing an environment;
parsing the model an obstacle data and constructing a
multi-dimensional data grid from the model and obstacle data;
calculating the cost of a path traversal; and
wherein the path traversal comprises nodes (n) and
traverses from a start node to an end node in the multi-
dimensional data grid based on the impact data.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Schultz et al.
Barkai et al.
US 2003/0093219 Al
US 8,417,447 B2
May 15, 2003
Apr. 9, 2013
Svetlana Dicheva & Yasmina Bestaouj, Route Finding for an
Autonomous Aircraft, 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the
New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, (January 2011)
("Dicheva").
Botan Majeed Ahmad Al-Hadad, An approach to the highway
alignment development process using genetic algorithm based optimization
(October 2011) (Ph.D. thesis, University ofNottingham) ("Al-Hadad").
2
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
anticipated by Dicheva. Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 4--7 and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dicheva and Schultz. Final Act. 5-8.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Dicheva and Barkai. Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dicheva and Al-Hadad. Final Act. 9-10.
STATUS OF AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE FINAL
REJECTION
The Claims Appendix section of the Brief contains claims that
Appellant previously presented in an amendment that was not entered by the
Examiner. Adv. Act. 1 (item 3.a. indicating that the proposed amendment
raises new issues that would require further search and consideration); see
also Ans. 2 ( explaining that the amendment dated June 27, 2017 was not
entered). Thus, we decide the appeal using the last-entered claim
amendment under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.121 ( c ), which is the amendment submitted
on November 29, 2016.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Dicheva discloses all limitations recited in
independent claims 1 and 11. Final Act. 2-3.
Appellant argues that Dicheva does not teach a four-dimensional
optimized route that is (1) based on a calculated cost-of-path traversal and
3
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
(2) represented in three-dimensional space along a changing time dimension.
Br. 7.
These features, however, are not recited in claims 1 and 11 of the last-
entered amendment. Ans. 2. Notably, the four-dimensional optimized route
was expressly recited in the amendment dated June 27, 2017. But that
amendment was not entered by the Examiner. Adv. Act. 1; Ans. 2.
Unlike the non-entered claims, the claims on appeal recite calculating
a cost of a path traversal, but not a four-dimensional optimized route based
on that calculation. Thus, Appellant's arguments concerning the four-
dimensional route are unpersuasive because they are based on features that
are neither expressly nor inherently required by claims 1 and 11.
Appellant further argues that Dicheva has two restrictions not found in
Appellant's invention. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues that Dicheva is
limited to weather-model data grids and associated grid resolutions. Id.
Appellant argues that the invention is not limited to these grids. Id. Also,
Appellant argues that Dicheva teaches a transformation to a two-dimensional
model. Id. Appellant argues, unlike Dicheva's modelling, the invention
maintains all calculations in three-dimensions and is resolution independent.
Id.
These arguments are also directed to features not recited in claims 1 or
11. Accord Ans. 3. Rather, claims 1 and 11 broadly recite a multi-
dimensional data grid. Appellant has not shown that this recited grid
excludes Dicheva's weather-model data grids.
Specifically, claims 1 and 11 recite model, obstacle, and impact data.
The recited method parses this data to construct the multi-dimensional data
grid for path traversal. The Specification discloses that the path's start
4
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
points and end points are located in a physical "airspace." Spec. ,r 13.
According to the Specification, the disclosed optimization provides paths
through "adverse weather conditions by aircrafts." Id. Consistent with this
example, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the recited grid
encompasses weather-model data grids for route finding, including
Dicheva's. Accord Ans. 3. Although the Specification discloses
applications other than for aircrafts (Spec. ,r 13), the claims are not limited to
those other embodiments.
To the extent that the claimed invention maintains all calculations and
results in a three-dimensional state (Br. 7), claims 1 and 11 recite
"constructing multi-dimensional data grid" without further limitation-
implicit or explicit----on the dimensions. On this record, we agree with the
Examiner that claims 1 and 11 encompass Dicheva's grids.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejections
of claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 2, 3, 12, and 13, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OVER DICHEV A AND SCHULTZ
Claims 4 and 143 recite, in part, "providing a four dimensional
optimized route based on the calculated cost of path traversal."
3 Claims 4 and 14 do not appear in the Appeal Brief' s Claims Appendix.
Br. 18, 21. In the non-entered amendment filed after the Final Rejection,
Appellant proposed incorporating some of the limitations from claims 4 and
14 in the corresponding independent claims. See Claims filed June 27, 2017.
As discussed above, the last-entered claim amendments-and the claims
subject to this appeal-are those filed on November 29, 2016.
5
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 14 over Dicheva and Schultz.
Final Act. 5-6. In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Dicheva lacks a
four-dimensional optimized route. Id. at 5. In concluding that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious, the Examiner finds that Schultz
teaches a four-dimensional optimized route. Id. ( citing Schultz ,r,r 70, 71,
154, 155).
Appellant argues that the Examiner "has erroneously considered the
teachings of the reference to Schultz et al. without due regard as to how one
skilled in the art would have reasonably combined their respective
teachings." Br. 9. According to Appellant, "Schultz et al. relates solely to
'time-dependent route planning in road networks."' Id. We disagree.
Schultz teaches an aircraft route planner for aiding an airline's
dispatchers or pilots. Schultz ,r 206. Schultz's route solver computes a four-
dimensional route-i.e., three spatial dimensions and a time dimension.
Id. ,r 70. Shultz's route minimizes a composite cost function that accounts
for fuel, time, hazard costs, overflight fees, and required times of arrivals.
Id. Because Schultz relates to routing flights rather than route planning in
road networks, Appellant's Brief does not squarely address, let alone
persuasively rebut, the Examiner's rejection.
Appellant also presents several other arguments that do not account
for the Examiner's findings or articulated obviousness rationale. Br. 10-11.
For example, Appellant argues that the Examiner relies on impermissible
hindsight. Id. This argument, however, does not squarely address the
Examiner's discussion of the operational efficiency realized by combining
the references. Final Act. 6 ( citing Schultz ,r 8).
6
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
Appellant argues that Dicheva and Schultz do not teach "the inclusion
of vertical boundaries (upper and lower) as found in the instant application."
Br. 9. Yet these limitations are not expressly recited in claims 4 and 14, and
Appellant has not explained how these features are related to those
limitations that are. See id.
On this record, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 14 and
dependent claims 5-7 and 15-17, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OVER DICHEV A AND BARKAI
Claims 9 and 19 recite, in part, "receiving the model data and obstacle
data in the form extensible markup language (XML) files."
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 19 over Dicheva and Barkai.
Final Act. 8-9. In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Dicheva does not
use XML. Id. at 8. In concluding that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious, the Examiner finds that Barkai teaches XML for
annotating and visualizing map data. Id. (citing Barkai 6:7-16).
Appellant argues that the Examiner "has erroneously considered the
teachings of the reference to Barkai et al. without due regard as to how one
skilled in the art would have reasonably combined their respective
teachings." Br. 11. Appellant also presents several other arguments that do
not account for the Examiner's findings or articulated obviousness rationale.
See id. at 11-13.
For example, Appellant argues "the Office Action relied on Dicheva's
failure to in the form extensible markup language (XML) et al. [sic] to
allegedly support the combination of Dicheva and Barkai et al on page 9 of
7
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
the Official Communication dated 01 September 2016." Br. 12. Yet the
appeal was taken from the Final Rejection dated March 30, 2017. Moreover,
Appellant's argument that the Examiner relied on "Dicheva's failure" is
unclear. Id. In the rejection on appeal, the Examiner relies on Barkai, not
Dicheva, to teach XML. Final Act. 8 (citing Barkai 6:7-16).
Also, we disagree that the Examiner relies on a "general statement
about the website's usage." Br. 12. Rather, the Examiner cites to Barkai's
teaching of using XML to describe waypoints, tracks, routes, geographical
annotation and visualization on maps. See Barkai 6:7-16. Appellant's
arguments are unpersuasive because they appear to be unconnected to
Barkai's teachings. Br. 11-13. Here, the Examiner simply relies on Barkai
for a particular known way to represent the model and obstacle data.
Final Act. 8. This enhancement uses prior-art elements predictably
according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
On this record, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 19.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OVER DICHEV A AND
AL-HADAD
Claims 10 and 20 recite, in part, "receiving the impact data as one of a
set of integer values and a set of floating point values."
The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 20 over Dicheva and Al-Hadad.
Final Act. 9-10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner "has erroneously considered the
teachings of the reference to [the] Al-Hadad thesis without due regard as to
how one skilled in the art would have reasonably combined their respective
teachings." Br. 14. Appellant also repeats several other conclusory
8
Appeal2018-003052
Application 14/073,908
arguments that do not account for the Examiner's findings or articulated
obviousness rationale. Id. at 14--15.
Apart from mentioning that "[ t ]hese pages in the reference generally
discuss, 'Vector data structures' and 'Raster data structures"' (id. at 14),
Appellant's arguments mirror those addressed in the previous section.
Id. at 13-14. Also, Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's specific
findings regarding Al-Hadad's binary and floating point methods. See
Ans. 11 (citing Al-Hadad 71). Thus, for reasons similar to those discussed
in the previous sections, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Accord id. at 14 ( discussing improper hindsight reasoning).
On this record, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9