Ex Parte Petersen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14277145 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/277,145 05/14/2014
28395 7590 08/23/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Petersen
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.
83430875 5001
EXAMINER
VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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 BRIAN PETERSON and JOSEPH PAUL RORK
Appeal2017-009384
Application 14/277, 145 1
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Final Decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Penilla. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, identified by
the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 U.S. Patent No. 9,104,537 Bl, issued Aug. 11, 2015.
Appeal2017-009384
Application 14/277,145
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent, with claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-
20 depending from claim 1, 8, or 15. Claim 1 is representative of the claims
on appeal, and is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
log vehicle start times;
determine if timing commonalities exist between logged
vehicle start time instances;
based on a threshold number of timing commonalities,
recommend automatic vehicle startup;
formulate recommended start times based on logged
vehicle startup time instances having timing commonalities;
present a schedule including recommended start times to a
vehicle user; and
schedule automatic vehicle startups upon vehicle user
acceptance of the presented schedule.
OPINION
Current Rejection - 35 US. C. § 102(a)(2)
The claims each require that a vehicle user is presented with "a
schedule" that includes "recommended start times." The Examiner cites
Penilla as disclosing this feature. Final Act. 2 ( citing Penilla, 27:8----67). The
cited portion of Penilla discusses circumstances where "the assumption and
reasoning logic engine has determined that the user may want to have his or
her car automatically started at 7:55 am because the user typically starts the
car at 8 am" and, in certain situations, "send[ ing] the user an alert or
recommendation requesting a decision on whether or not to tum the vehicle
on." Penilla, 27:9-20. Appellant contends that Penilla does not disclose
2
Appeal2017-009384
Application 14/277,145
multiple start times being presented to the vehicle user as a proposed
schedule. App. Br. 6-7. The Examiner responds that "Penilla more
explicitly discloses sending more than one action recommendation at a time
for the user to accept or reject (Column 28, Lines 47-54)." Ans. 5---6.
The problem with the rejection is that Penilla does not disclose
scheduling multiple start times. Rather, as seen above in the reproduced
portion of column 27 from Penilla, a single start time is scheduled and
presented to the vehicle user. As for the additional citation to column 28 of
Penilla noted in the Answer, Appellant explains that "col. 28, 11. 47-54,
relates to queuing different actions" (i.e., not sending more than one
recommended start time). Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1-20 as being anticipated by Penilla.
NewRejection-35 US.C. § 103
Although we agree that the Examiner has failed to establish that
claims 1-20 are anticipated by Penilla, we determine that those claims
would have been unpatentable over Penilla under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Specifically, we adopt the Examiner's findings related to claims 1-20, other
than those related to Penilla disclosing determining, presenting, and
scheduling multiple start-ups. Final Act. 2-5. We agree with the Examiner
that Penilla teaches determining, presenting, and scheduling individual
instances of vehicle start-up. See Penilla, 27:8---67. With respect to the
addition of multiple start times, rather than individual instances of vehicle
start-up, for the determining, presenting, and scheduling, we determine that
such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of the further
teachings of Penilla noted by the Examiner. See Ans. 5-6 ( citing Penilla,
3
Appeal2017-009384
Application 14/277,145
28:47-54). Penilla describes the benefits of having multiple "action
recommendations ... queued up, so that a user can handle two or more at
one time, such as when the user is logged into their account" so "a user
account can provide for a less obstructive means of getting the user's
attention." Penilla 28:51-56. Accordingly, based on the disclosure of
Penilla, we determine that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate, present, and schedule
multiple start times, rather than single instances of vehicle start-up, in order
to provide a more convenient scheduling process requiring less user
interaction, resulting in a less obstructive means for getting the user's
attention.
Based on our findings and reasoning set forth above, including those
findings noted above as adopted from the Examiner's rejection, we reject
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Penilla.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1-20 on the
basis that these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). Section 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review." Section 4I.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
4
Appeal2017-009384
Application 14/277,145
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
5