Ex Parte Kolisetty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14517256 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/517,256 10/17/2014
28395 7590 11/30/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aiswarya Kolisetty
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.
83465900 5129
EXAMINER
HAN, CHARLES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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 AISWARY A KOLISETTY, JOHANNES GIER
KRISTINSSON, AND JOSEPH WISNIEWSKI 1
Appeal2017-009844
Application 14/517,256
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejecting claims 6-11 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-5 and 12-15 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final
Act. 1.
Appeal2017-009844
Application 14/517 ,256
BACKGROUND
Sole independent claim 6, reproduced below, represents the claimed
invention.
6. A vehicle comprising:
at least one processor programmed to
generate an alert in response to a distance between
the vehicle and a lane boundary the vehicle is traveling in
falling below a threshold distance,
communicate with a personal activity tracking
device configured to detect a biometric characteristic of a
driver of the vehicle, and
increase the threshold distance based on the
biometric characteristic.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2010/0039249 Al, pub. Feb. 18, 2010) and
Moore-Ede (US 2014/0081179 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2014). Final Act. 4.
II. Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schmitz, Moore-Ede, and Venkatraman (US
2014/0275854 Al, pub. Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I- Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10
Regarding independent claim 6, the Examiner finds that Schmitz
discloses a vehicle having a processor programmed to (1) generate an alert
in response to a distance between the vehicle and its lane boundary falling
below a threshold, (2) detect a biometric characteristic ( e.g., drowsy or
inattentive) of the vehicle driver, and (3) increase a lane departure threshold
2
Appeal2017-009844
Application 14/517 ,256
distance based on the biometric characteristic to give the driver more
reaction time. Final Act. 4 ( citing Schmitz Fig. 1, ,r,r 24, 25).
The Examiner finds that Moore-Ede discloses a processor configured
to communicate with a personal activity tracking device ( e.g., smartwatch
device 100) that detects a biometric characteristic of a vehicle driver. Id. at
5 (citing Moore-Ede Figs. IA, IB, 2, Abstract, ,r,r 2, 3, 23, 67, 84). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to configure Schmitz's
processor "to communicate with a personal activity tracking device
configured to detect a biometric characteristic of' the vehicle driver and to
"increase the threshold distance based on the biometric characteristic
[detected] ... by Moore-Ede" to "safeguard employee health and
productivity ... where people work extended hours[,] ... where employees,
employers, and managers often lose track of how much sleep debt the
workers are accumulating and how fatigue impaired the workers are .... "
Id. (citing Moore-Ede ,r 1).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in finding that
Moore-Ede discloses communicating fatigue data from a smart watch to a
vehicle processor. Id. (citing Moore Ede ,r,r 66-68, 83, claim 7, Fig. 2b).
According to Appellant, the cited paragraphs of Moore-Ede "merely suggest
that a smart device can receive input data" such as GPS and warnings, rather
than transmitting biometric data. Id.
The Examiner responds that claim 6 only recites the vehicle processor
being programmed to communicate with a personal activity tracking device
that detects a biometric characteristic of the vehicle driver, without requiring
that information from the personal activity tracking device specifically being
sent to the vehicle. Ans. 4. The Examiner also notes that Moore-Ede's
3
Appeal2017-009844
Application 14/517 ,256
smartwatch device 100 can receive data from a vehicle processor (ECM).
Id.
While it may be true that (1) claim 6 does not require sending
information from the personal activity tracking device to the vehicle, and (2)
Moore-Ede contemplates its smartwatch device 100 receiving data from a
vehicle processor, the Examiner's proffered reasoning requires sending
information from Moore-Ede's personal activity tracking device to the
vehicle. For example, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to configure Schmitz' s processor to "increase the threshold distance
based on the biometric characteristic [ detected] ... by Moore-Ede" to
"safeguard employee health and productivity .... " Final Act. 5 ( citing
Moore-Ede ,r 1). For Schmitz's system to increase the threshold distance
based on Moore-Ede's detected biometric characteristic, Moore-Ede's
detected biometric characteristic would need to be communicated from
Moore-Ede's personal activity tracking device 100 to Schmitz's vehicle
processor. The Examiner also contends that one skilled in the art would
understand that Moore-Ede's calculated fatigue score and predicted fatigue
impairment risks would improve Schmitz's lane departure/attention
detection system "as these measurements of fatigue are not [specifically]
detected by Schmitz." Ans. 6. This reasoning also requires sending
information from Moore-Ede's personal activity tracking device 100 to
Schmitz's vehicle processor. The Examiner never explains how the
references disclose, teach, or suggest sending information from Moore-Ede's
personal activity tracking device to Schmitz's vehicle processor, and we
cannot readily discern such a disclosure. For this reason, we do not sustain
4
Appeal2017-009844
Application 14/517 ,256
the rejection of independent claim 6, or claims 7, 9, and 10 that depend
therefrom.
Rejection II- Claims 8 and 11
Claims 8 and 11 depend from independent claim 6. The Examiner
makes no finding that V enkatraman cures the deficiency of the combination
of Schmitz and Moore-Ede. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 8 and 11.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 as unpatentable
over Schmitz and Moore-Ede.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8 and 11 as unpatentable over
Schmitz, Moore-Ede, and Venkatraman.
REVERSED
5