Ex Parte POPHALE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2019

14789039 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/789,039 07/01/2015 Sachin POPHALE
34007 7590 03/26/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. I LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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.
LEAR 54590 PUS 1905
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, TYLERB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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 SACHIN POPHALE and
GADDAM SACHIN KRANTHI KUMAR
Appeal2018-007325
Application 14/789,039 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party of interest as Lear Corporation.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2018-007325
Application 14/789,039
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a vehicle authentication system,
which includes a controller configured to detect a trigger event, activate at
least one camera, transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device, receive an
image from the at least one camera, and grant access to the vehicle in
response to the image including the unique identifier. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 12 exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics:
1. A vehicle authentication system, comprising:
a controller configured to:
detect a trigger event including a sequence of interactions
with at least one exterior component of the vehicle;
in response to the trigger event, activate at least one
vehicle camera and transmit a unique identifier to a mobile
device;
receive an image from the at least one camera; and
grant access to the vehicle in response to the image
including the unique identifier.
12. A vehicle authentication system, comprising:
a camera; and
a controller configured to:
determine a trigger event including a sequence of
interactions with at least one exterior component of the
vehicle;
activate the camera in response to the trigger
event;
receive a unique image from the camera;
compare the unique image with at least one stored
image; and
2
Appeal2018-007325
Application 14/789,039
unlock at least one vehicle door in response to the
unique image and stored image matching.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Saylor (US 8,943,187 Bl; Jan. 27, 2015) and Gehrke (US
2001/0049569 Al; Dec. 6, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11 and 13-20
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7-82) that the
combination of Saylor and Gehrke would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "in response to the
trigger event, activate at least one vehicle camera and transmit a unique
identifier to a mobile device."
The Examiner found that the authorization procedure of Gehrke, in
which the user pulls the door handle, causing transmitter/receiver 18 on the
vehicle side to emit a signal, corresponds to the limitation "trigger event."
(Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further found that the unlocking action of
Saylor by recipient 152, in which electronic device 122 displays an image
(e.g., QR code or bar code) and a scanner on lock 158 reads the image,
corresponds to the limitation "in response to the trigger event, activate at
2 The recitation of "in response to the trigger event, activate at least one
vehicle camera and transmit a unique identifier to a mobile device" in
independent claim 1 is similar in scope to dependent claim 13, which recites
"wherein the controller is further configured to transmit a unique identifier
to a mobile device in response to the trigger event" ( emphases added).
Accordingly, Appellants' argument with respect to dependent claim 13 are
also applicable to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal2018-007325
Application 14/789,039
least one vehicle camera and transmit a unique identifier to a mobile
device." (Id. at 4--5.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings.
Gehrke relates to "[a] device for exchanging data with a motor vehicle
having a portable transponder." (Abstract.) Gehrke explains that "the user
begins the access authorization procedure ... by pulling the door handle."
(i-f 18.) Moreover, Gehrke explains that "[a]s a result, control unit 20 causes
transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side to emit an inquiry signal" and
"[t]he in-range transponder 16 receives the inquiry signal and in reply, sends
the (vehicle-dependent) authorization code as a response signal back to
transmitter/receiver 18, the signal being encoded in some instances." (Id.)
Saylor relates to "a social networking platform [that] may provide
electronic keys to other users of the social networking platform." (Abstract.)
Saylor explains that "[t]o use the electronic key, the recipient 152 initiates an
unlocking action using the electronic device 122." (Col. 9, 11. 55-56.)
Moreover, Saylor explains that "[t]he lock 158 may include one or more
mechanisms for communicating with persons and other devices" and "[t]he
input mechanisms may include ... a camera." (Col. 9, 11. 31-34.) In one
embodiment of Saylor, "the electronic device 122 receives access data that
permits the electronic device 122 to open the lock" (col. 8, 11. 47--49), with
exemplary access data being a Quick Response (QR) code or a bar code
(col. 8, 11. 55-56). Saylor further explains that "[t]he electronic device 122
may display the image, and a scanner on the lock may read the image to
confirm that access is permitted." (Col. 8, 11. 57-59.)
While Gehrke explains that the user pulls the door handle, resulting in
the start of the authorization procedure, and Saylor explains that the scanner
reads access data in the form of a Quick Response (QR) code or a bar code,
4
Appeal2018-007325
Application 14/789,039
the Examiner has not demonstrated that the unique identifier is transmitted
to a mobile device "in response to the trigger event," as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "Saylor
discusses receive [sic] a QR code at a camera, but not within the context of
transmitting such a code in response to a trigger event." (App. Br. 7-8.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1. We do not sustain
the rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.
Independent claim 20 and dependent claim 13 recite limitations
similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 13 and 20, as well as dependent claims 14--19, for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim 12
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 5---63) that
the combination of Saylor and Gehrke would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 12, which includes the limitation "determine a trigger
3 The disputed limitation of claim 12 is similar in scope to a limitation
found in independent claim 1, which recites "detect a trigger event including
a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior component of the
vehicle" (emphases added). Appellants argue that claim 12 is patentable for
the same reasons indicated with respect to the disputed limitation found in
claim 1. (App. Br. 7 .)
5
Appeal2018-007325
Application 14/789,039
event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior
component of the vehicle."
The Examiner found that the authorization procedure of Gehrke, in
which the user pulls the door handle, causing transmitter/receiver 18 on the
vehicle side to emit a signal, corresponds to the limitation "determine a
trigger event including a sequence of interactions with at least one exterior
component of the vehicle." (See Final Act. 4, 12.) We agree with the
Examiner's findings.
As discussed previously, Gehrke explains that "the user begins the
access authorization procedure ... by pulling the door handle." (i-f 18.)
Furthermore, Gehrke explains that "[a]s a result, control unit 20 causes
transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side to emit an inquiry signal" and
"[t]he in-range transponder 16 receives the inquiry signal and in reply, sends
the (vehicle-dependent) authorization code as a response signal back to
transmitter/receiver 18, the signal being encoded in some instances." (Id.)
Because Gehrke explains that when the user pulls the door handle,
transmitter/receiver 18 on the vehicle side sends an authorization code to an
in-range transponder 16, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4, 12) that
Gehrke teaches the limitation "detect a trigger event including a sequence of
interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle."
Appellants argue that "Gehrke does not disclose any 'sequence of
interactions with at least one exterior component of the vehicle"' and "[ t Jo
the contrary, Gehrke discloses a single pull of the door handle." (App.
Br. 5.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited to paragraph
18 of Gehrke, which includes at least one step: (i) the user pulling the door
handle; and (ii) transponder 16 being in-range. Accordingly, we agree with
6
Appeal2018-007325
Application 14/789,039
the Examiner (Final Act. 4, 12) that Gehrke teaches "a sequence of
interactions."
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Saylor and
Gehrke would have rendered obvious independent claim 12, which includes
the limitation "determine a trigger event including a sequence of interactions
with at least one exterior component of the vehicle."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 12 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-20 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
7