Ex Parte TSENG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

14255484 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/255,484 04/17/2014
28395 7590 04/02/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fling TSENG
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.
83389377 2559
EXAMINER
BUTLER, MICHAELE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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 FLING TSENG and HAI YU
Appeal 2018-003 951
Application 14/255,484
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 10-20, which are the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") is the Applicant and is
identified as the real party in interest. 37 C.F.R. § 1.46; Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's "disclosure relates to a method for detecting, learning,
and characterizing road infrastructure based on data obtained from existing
sensors in automotive vehicles." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, and
reads:
1. A method of generating street map data comprising:
collecting acceleration, turning, and geolocation data from
acceleration sensors, turning sensors, and geolocation systems by
a processor in at least one vehicle across a plurality of vehicle
drive cycles;
predicting a presence of a traffic control device at a
geolocation in response to a repetitive driving pattern in the data;
classifying the traffic control device based on a correlation
of the repetitive driving pattern with stored stop probability data
and stored stop duration data associated with traffic control
devices; and
updating street map data to include the traffic control
device at the geolocation.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1---6, 10-15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 2
as unpatentable over Tamir (US 2007/0027583 Al, published Feb. 1, 2007)
and Templeton (US 8,855,904 Bl, issued Oct. 7, 2014).
2 The heading of the rejection indicates the rejection is under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a). Final Act. 3. However, the subject application was filed on
2
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
Claims 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tamir, Templeton, and Ginsberg (US 2013/0131980 Al,
published May 23, 2013).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tamir, Templeton, and Ricci (US 2013/0158821 Al, published June 20,
2013).
ANALYSIS
Ineligible Subject Matter (Claims 1-7 and 10-20)
Step 1 - Statutory Category
Appellant argues all of the claims 1-7 and 10-20 together in
contesting the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Appeal Br. 3-7.
Accordingly, we decide the appeal of this rejection based on claim 1, with
claims 2-7 and 10-20 standing or falling with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the
appeal as to a ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). 3
Claim 1 recites a series of steps, and, therefore, is a process. See
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
or after March 16, 2013. Id. at 2. Accordingly, we will treat this rejection,
and the two following rejections, as under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3 See also In re Marco Guldenaar Holdings B. V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) ("And our case law and Rule 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) make clear that, for
an applicant to receive separate consideration by the Board for each of its
appealed claims, an applicant's appeal brief must contain substantive
argument beyond 'a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.' In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Rule 37(c)(l)(iv)."
3
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
Step 2A, Prong One - Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance4 is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One,
we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract
ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because
we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. See
Memorandum.
The Examiner determines claim 1 is "directed to the abstract idea of
determining the likelihood of a traffic control device premised upon changes
in vehicle speed at that location." Final Act. 2. The Examiner also
determines the additional claim elements other than the abstract idea amount
to no more than the "collection of data and access to an electronic database
therefore merely being equivalent to mental steps." Id.
Appellant contends the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 4. According to the Appellant, the Examiner does not associate
the identified abstract idea with one of the exemplary abstract ideas
identified by the Supreme Court. Id. Appellant also asserts, to the extent the
rejection alleges the claims are "merely being equivalent to mental steps,"
this is error. Id.
These contentions are unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Particularly, claim 1 recites, in part, steps of
"predicting," "classifying," and "updating." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The predicting step calls for predicting the presence of a traffic control
device at a geolocation in response to a repetitive driving pattern in the data
4 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "Memorandum").
4
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
that is collected in the collecting step. Claim 1 does not specify how "a
repetitive driving pattern in the data" is determined. The predicting step
involves analyzing of data, which is a mental process of evaluating. See In
re BRCA1 & BRCArBased Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d
755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Memorandum at 52 (defining mental
processes as "concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion" (footnote omitted)). As the
predicting step is a process involving an evaluation and/or judgment, under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, the predicting step covers
performance in the human mind, and thus, recites an abstract idea.
The classifying step calls for classifying the predicted traffic control
device based on a correlation of the repetitive driving pattern with stored
stop probability and stored stop duration data associated with traffic control
devices. The classifying step is a process that involves making an evaluation
and/or judgment based on a comparison of data. Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, the classifying step encompasses performance of
the step in the human mind. These evaluations and/or judgments are mental
processes.
The updating step calls for "updating street map data to include the
traffic control device at the geolocation." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). The
updating step does not specify whether "the traffic control device at the
geolocation" corresponds to the "predicted" traffic control device predicted
in the predicting step or the "classified" traffic control device classified in
the classifying step. Id. Under the broadest reasonable construction, the
claimed updating of street map data is an evaluation of data. Accordingly,
the updating step is also a mental process.
5
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites "mental
steps" or mental processes that can practically be performed in the human
mind. Because we conclude claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to
Prong Two to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a
practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - Integrated Into a Practical Application
As noted, if a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
See Memorandum. This evaluation requires an additional element or a
combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the exception. See id.
Appellant contends, to the extent any abstract idea can be generalized
from the claims, the claims include several meaningful limitations that limit
the alleged abstract idea to a practical application of the idea. Appeal Br. 4.
We disagree. Apart from the judicial exception discussed above,
claim 1 recites only the additional element of "collecting acceleration,
turning, and geolocation data from acceleration sensors, turning sensors, and
geolocation systems by a processor in at least one vehicle across a plurality
of vehicle drive cycles" ("collecting step"). Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
6
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
The Examiner determines that the recited data collecting is "routine data
collection," and that the data is then used "to determine the likelihood of a
traffic control and what type of control device is present at the location."
Ans. 5. We determine that the "collecting step" merely recites collecting
data that can be analyzed, and, therefore, the "collecting step" is
insignificant extra-solution activity. See Memorandum at 55 n.31.
Appellant does not contend persuasively that the language of claim 1
reflects an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. See
MPEP § 2106.05(a). And, claim 1 does not appear to pertain to an
improvement to the functioning of the processor or sensors. See id.
As we conclude the additional element in claim 1 does not integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, we
proceed to Step 2B to determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation
that is not a "well-understood, routine, conventional" activity in the field.
Step 2B- Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
As noted, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim
adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-
understood, routine, conventional" in the field. See Memorandum.
The Examiner concludes that, viewed as a whole, the additional claim
elements fail to provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea
into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Final Act. 2-3.
Appellant contends, even assuming the claims are directed to an
abstract idea, the claims include additional elements that are significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, the
7
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
additional elements "provide meaningful limitations related to a 'real-world'
application of the abstract idea to update previously stored mapping data
based on vehicle driving patterns including stopping locations and
durations." Id.
Appellant does not, however, identify the purported additional
elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 1
recites predicting, classifying, and updating steps, which are "mental steps"
or mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
Apart from the recited mental processes, claim 1 recites the collecting step
as an additional element. As the collecting step merely recites insignificant
extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, Appellant does not persuade
us that the claim element in addition to those elements that recite an abstract
idea is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
To the extent Appellant is relying on the claim limitations that recite the
abstract idea as providing significantly more, "[i]t has been clear since Alice
that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly
more' than that ineligible concept." BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018).
Further, "[i]f a claim's only 'inventive concept' is the application of
an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the
claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an
abstract idea." Id. at 1290-91. Appellant does not provide persuasive
argument or evidence to show that the collecting of data recited in the
collecting step involves more than using conventional and well-understood
techniques.
8
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-7 and 10-
20, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
Obviousness over Tamir and Templeton (Claims 1-6, 10-15, 17, and 19)
For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Tamir discloses the limitations
recited in the collecting and updating steps. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
also finds that Templeton teaches "[s]tored ... stop duration data associated
with traffic control devices" and "classifying the traffic control device based
on a correlation of the repetitive driving pattern with stored stop probability
data." Id. at 4 (citing Templeton, col. 1, 11. 34--45, col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9, 1. 6,
col. 9, 11. 20-35, col. 16, 11. 4--14). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to use vehicle stop wait
acceleration and slowdown times and probabilities to enhance the
determination and characterization of traffic control devices as a statistical
determination factoring in proximate events can assist in filtering out
transient events such as accidents[,] construction delays[,] vehicle stalls from
continuing traffic pattern adjustments characteristic of a control device as
taught by Templeton." Id.
Appellant contends that the applied combination does not teach or
suggest the classifying step. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant asserts that the
description in Templeton at column 16, lines 4--14, does not disclose or
suggest "classifying the traffic control device based on a correlation of the
repetitive pattern with stored stop probability correlation," as claimed. Id. at
8-9.
9
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
Appellant's contention is not persuasive. Appellant does not address
the Examiner's full rejection; that is, the rejection does not rely on just the
description in Templeton reproduced by Appellant as providing a teaching
of the classification of traffic control devices. The Examiner explains that
Templeton additionally teaches repeatedly doing a cycle time analysis if a
vehicle repeatedly stops at a location for greater than 1-2 seconds, and,
particularly, if there is a bimodal distribution of velocities with some
occasional travel at or near the speed limit at a location. Ans. 6-7 ( citing
Templeton, col. 8, 11. 36-60, col. 9, 11. 20-35). The Examiner submits this
analysis is suggestive of a traffic signal light, and that Templeton designates
the location as having a traffic signal light at that location based on the
probability of the vehicle traffic at that location. Id. at 7. The Examiner
determines this disclosure in Templeton is a classification of a traffic control
device. Id. The Examiner submits that slowing of a vehicle at the location
with greater than 75% of the vehicle movement data dropping below 0.5 mis
before passing (i.e., "before proceeding through the intersection") is
suggestive of a flashing light or yield sign. Id. (citing Templeton, col. 8, 1.
61---col. 9, 1. 6). Templeton discloses that this technique can be used for
determining a probable traffic stop sign. See Templeton, col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9,
1. 6. The Examiner determines this disclosure in Templeton is also a
classification of a traffic control device. Id.
In light of the Examiner's explanation (Ans. 6-7), Appellant does not
apprise us of any error in the Examiner's position that Templeton teaches
"classifying the traffic control device based on a correlation of the repetitive
pattern with stored stop probability correlation." Accordingly, we sustain
10
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 5, and 15 depending therefrom, as
unpatentable over Tamir and Templeton.
Claim 6 recites a mapping system comprising a computing system
configured to perform the listed functions, including "update mapping data
to include the traffic control device" ("update limitation"). Appeal Br. 12
(Claims App.). Appellant contends that the rejection does not reference any
teaching in Tamir or Templeton for the update limitation. Id. at 9.
Regarding the update limitation in claim 6, the Examiner finds Tamir
discloses the "mapping data to include the traffic control device," rather than
"update mapping data to include the traffic control device," as actually
claimed. Final Act. 5 ( citing Tamir ,r 49). However, the Examiner, in
finding that Tamir discloses the similar updating step in claim 1, cites to
paragraph 49 of Tamir. Id. at 4. Based on the close similarity in the
updating step in claim 1 and the "update limitation" in claim 6, Appellant
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding that Tamir discloses
the "updating limitation" in claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claim 6, and of claim 17 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Tamir
and Templeton.
Claim 10 recites a method of generating mapping data. Appeal Br. 12
(Claims App.). Appellant contends that, as argued for the rejection of claim
1 over Tamir and Templeton, the passage at column 16, lines 4--14 of
Templeton relied on by the Examiner likewise fails to disclose "generating
mapping data including a predicted category of a traffic control device
located at a geolocation ... the predicted category being based on a
correlation of the repeated driving pattern with stored stop probability and
11
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
duration data associated with traffic control devices," as recited in claim 10.
Id. at 9.
This contention is not persuasive because it does not address the
Examiner's stated rejection. First, the Examiner does not rely solely on
Templeton as teaching the entire limitation quoted by Appellant. Instead,
the Examiner relies on Templeton for teaching "the category being based on
a correlation of repeated driving pattern with stored stop probability." Final
Act. 6. Second, Appellant does not apprise us of error in this finding as to
Templeton. The Examiner finds Templeton teaches predicting the presence
of traffic control devices based on repeated driving patterns of vehicles
(including vehicle stop duration and velocity data), at different geolocations,
and further teaches predicting the type of the traffic control devices (e.g., "a
probable traffic stop sign or flashing red light") based on the driving
patterns. See, e.g., Templeton, col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9, 1. 6. Additionally,
Templeton teaches using stoppage data to estimate the cycle time of traffic
signals. See, e.g., id. col. 9, 11. 20-35. Third, the Examiner finds Templeton
teaches "mapping the locations of the derived classified traffic control
devices and using them for later warnings to the driver," and to "detect the
removal of traffic control devices and reclassify those locations regarding
their traffic control devices." Ans. 7 (citing Templeton, col. 2, 1. 54---col. 3, 1.
3). Appellant does not apprise us of error in these findings or in the
Examiners' reasoning for combining the reference teachings.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, and of claims 11-
14 and 19 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Tamir and Templeton.
12
Appeal 2018-003951
Application 14/255,484
Obviousness over Tamir, Templeton, and Ginsberg (Claims 16, 18, and 20)
Appellant does not present separate argument for patentability for
dependent claims 16, 18, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
these claims as unpatentable over Tamir, Templeton, and Ginsberg for the
same reasons discussed for parent claims 1, 6, and 10.
Obviousness over Tamir, Templeton, and Ricci (Claim 7)
Appellant does not present separate argument for patentability for
dependent claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 as
unpatentable over Tamir, Templeton, and Ricci for the same reasons as for
parent claim 6.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent ineligible subject matter is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 1---6, 10-15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Tamir and Templeton is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tamir, Templeton, and Ginsberg is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tamir, Templeton, and Ricci is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13