FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019005120 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/603,651 05/24/2017 Hamid M. GOLGIRI 83788697 1021
28395 7590 12/31/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
GHULAMALI, QUTBUDDIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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 HAMID M. GOLGIRI,
PATRICK LAWRENCE JACKSON VAN HOECKE, and
AARON MATTHEW DELONG
________________

Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and
JON M. JURGOVAN Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a first vehicle having a
first vehicle perimeter and a first transceiver that digitally maps a second
vehicle perimeter around a location of a second transceiver and alerts a
driver of the first vehicle of a likely overlap condition of the second vehicle
perimeter and the first vehicle perimeter. Abstract.
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
(disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. A system comprising:
a first-vehicle processor configured to:
receive a signal broadcast from a second-vehicle
transceiver;
determine distance between a plurality of first
transceivers, receiving the signal, and the second-vehicle
transceiver;
determine second vehicle dimensions;
[1] digitally map a second vehicle perimeter around a
second-vehicle transceiver location, determined based on
the distances; and
alert a first vehicle driver of a likely overlap condition of
the second vehicle perimeter and a first vehicle
perimeter.
10. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine that a first vehicle has entered a parking lot;
receive a plurality of second vehicle wireless signal
broadcasts;
determine distances, based on the received signals, from
a first vehicle transceiver to second vehicle transceivers;
Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651

3

determine second vehicle perimeters, around the second
vehicle transceivers;
digitally map the second vehicle perimeters to determine
empty areas between second vehicles; and
display a parking map including the empty areas
identified as potential parking spaces.
15. The system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured
to determine [2] a location of the second vehicle transceivers
within the second vehicles.
16. The system of claim 15, [3] wherein the processor is
configured to determine the second transceiver locations based
on information included in the received signals.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Beaurepaire US 2015/0070196 A1 Mar. 12, 2015
Ooyabu US 2015/0083921 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
Rahman et al. (“Rahman”) US 2015/0130641 A1 May 14, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Ooyabu and Beaurepaire. Final Act. 5–7.
The Examiner rejects claims 10–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Ooyabu, Bearepaire, and Rahman. Final Act. 7–11.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Except as detailed below with respect to the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 16, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651

4

taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. To that extent, we
have considered Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive
of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–15, 19, and 20
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Ooyabu’s
inter-vehicle communication teachings (i.e., communications of distances
using light emitter 21 and light receiver 22) combined with Beaurepaire’s
providing of vehicle dimension data by sensors teaches or suggests recitation
[1], “digitally map[ping] a second vehicle perimeter around a second-vehicle
transceiver location.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing, e.g., Ooyabu ¶ 42, Figs. 2, 3;
Beaurepaire ¶ 27); Ans. 4–6 (further citing Ooyabu ¶¶ 33–36, 43, Fig. 1);
see also Final Act. 8–9 (citing Beaurepaire ¶ 27) (“Beaurepaire in a similar
field discloses determin[ing a] second vehicle perimeter[]”).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the concept of
Ooyabu “relates to light detection and distance based on light characteristics,
[thus] there would be literally no way to ‘map the perimeter 7’ around the
vehicle based on the techniques discussed in paragraph 42.” Appeal Br. 6;
Reply Br. 2–4. That is, Appellant argues that “in Ooyabu, when a vehicle
comes into communication range (which is what is shown in element 7)
communication occurs. This is not an overlap of perimeters, as claimed, but
rather one vehicle reaching communication range with another.” Appeal Br.
6–7. Appellant further argues “[t]he cited portions of Beaurepaire relate to
having parked vehicles inform parking vehicles about available parking
spaces, and at no time is the perimeter of any vehicle mapped, let alone
Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651

5

based on received distances from a second-vehicle transmission to first-
vehicle transceivers.” Id. at 7.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
reliance on Beaurepaire, which discloses more than informing parking
vehicles about available parking spaces. Rather, Beaurepaire teaches that
“most vehicles are equipped with one or more sensors which allow them to
detect the orientation of other vehicles” and that “sensors may provide one
or more vehicles with dimension information.” Beaurepaire ¶ 27. In
particular, “the at least one parking vehicle may provide dimension
information to the one or more parked vehicles, and the one or more parked
vehicles may provide the at least one parking vehicle with parking space
information.” Id. Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s finding that
providing such dimension information teaches determining second vehicle
dimensions. Final Act. 6 (citing Beaurepaire ¶ 27). And although
Beaurepaire distinguishes between a parking vehicle and one or more parked
vehicles, claim 1 does not make such a distinction between a first vehicle
and a second vehicle. Moreover, the Examiner relies on Beaurepaire to teach
or suggest modifying Ooyabu in the manner of claim 1 rather than on
Beaurepaire alone. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Ooyabu and Beaurepaire teaches or suggests recitation [1] of
claim 1. Final Act. 5–6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2–15, 19, 20, which Appellant does not argue
separately with persuasive specificity. Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 5–6
(submitting Appellant “inadvertently argued claim 16 instead of claim 19”
Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651

6

and then making arguments, untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 41(b)(2), with
respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Claims 16–18
In rejecting claim 16 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Ooyabu’s
determination of a second transceiver location teaches recitation [3],
“wherein the processor is configured to determine the second transceiver
locations based on information included in the received signals.” Final Act.
10 (citing Ooyabu ¶¶ 12, 86); Ans. 6. Appellant contends the Examiner erred
because the ultra-violet light of Ooyabu does not provide information used
to “determine where in the broadcasting vehicle the transceivers are
located.” Appeal Br. 8.
The antecedent basis for the “second transceiver locations” of
recitation [3] is found in claim 15, from which claim 16 depends, recitation
[2]: “a location of the second vehicle transceivers within the second
vehicles” (emphasis added). Claim 15 depends from claim 10, which
provides the antecedent basis for the “second vehicle transceivers” but does
not include any recitation about the second vehicle transceivers being within
the second vehicles. Thus, the limitation of “within the second vehicles” in
recitation [2] modifies “a location of the second vehicle transceivers” (and
thus also the “second transceiver locations of recitation [3]) by limiting the
claimed locations to where—within the second vehicle—the second vehicle
transceivers are located.
We are unable to discern any teachings or suggestions in the cited
paragraphs of Ooyabu directed to communicating where in the second
vehicle the second vehicle transceivers are located. Rather, Ooyabu teaches
a “communication device performs transmission and receipt of a signal . . .
Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651

7

between the subject vehicle and the different vehicle to exchange
information” (Ooyabu ¶ 12) without teaching that the exchanged
information includes the location of the communication device within the
vehicle. The other teachings of Ooyabu the Examiner cites relate to using a
ranging calculator to calculate a distance between two vehicles, a collision
determinator to determine whether there is a possibility of a collision, and an
avoid operation to operate a brake or steering apparatus, and possibly warn
the driver or operate an airbag. Ooyabu ¶ 86 (cited in Final Act. 10). But
these additional teachings also fail to include signals that provide
information from which the location of the communication device within a
vehicle can be determined. The Examiner does not show that Beaurepaire or
Rahman cures this deficiency in Ooyabu. Thus, we find Appellant’s
argument persuasive, and therefore we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s findings do not show that Ooyabu teaches or suggestions
recitation [3]. Appeal Br. 8.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 16, and claims 17 and 18, which depend
from claim 16 and contain disputed recitation [3].
Appeal 2019-005120
Application 15/603,651

8

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–9 103 Ooyabu, Beaurepaire 1–9
10–20 103 Ooyabu, Beaurepaire,
Rahman
10–15,
19, 20
16–18
Overall
Outcome
1–15,
19, 20
16–18
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART