Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

15608309 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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.
15/608,309 05/30/2017 Walter Joseph Talamonti 83782150(65080-2375) 3985
113140 7590 08/11/2020
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER JOSEPH TALAMONTI, SHUN-AN CHUNG, and
LOUIS TIJERINA
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, 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, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer 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. 3.
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a real time lane change display. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
displaying a predicted path that represents a steerable path
polynomial based on a planned lane change maneuver;
executing the lane change maneuver; and
while the lane change maneuver is being executed
updating the predicted path display based on the lane change
maneuver.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sim US 2016/0185388 A1 June 30, 2016
Hass US 2016/0280265 A1 Sept. 29, 2016
Yamaoka US 2016/0304126 A1 Oct. 20, 2016
Gupta US 2018/0196436 A1 July 12, 2018
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8 and 11–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yamaoka and Gupta. Final Act. 2.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yamaoka, Gupta, Haas and Sim. Final Act. 4.
OPINION
Claims 1 and 11
Claim 1 is representative of claims 1 and 11 under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In rejecting claim 1 based on the Yamaoka and Gupta
combination the examiner initially appears to rely on Yamaoka’s “lane line”
as the recited “predicted path.” Final Act. 2. The “lane line[s]” in Yamaoka
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

3
are representations of the lane demarcations on the roadway itself and are
identified by reference numeral 72. Yamaoka para. 48; Fig. 4A–G. In
addressing the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant does appear to be correct in
stating: “Yamaoka’s closest teaching of the recited displaying or updating
appears to be a disclosure of displaying target lines indicating a direction of
a lane change.” App. Br. 5 (citing Yamaoka para. 63) (emphasis added).
This is because the target line, represented by reference numeral 77 in
Yamaoka, represents the direction of a lane change in the display screen 70
and therefore would be regarded by the skilled artisan as “a predicted path
that represents a steerable path [] based on a planned lane change maneuver”
according to claim 1. Yamaoka para. 49. In the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner does not correct Appellant’s interpretation of Yamaoka by, for
example, indicating that it was not the target line 77 of Yamaoka that the
Examiner relied on in the rejection, but the lane lines 72 themselves which
the Examiner intended to rely on as the recited “predicted path” of claim 1.
Arguably, if the vehicle in Yamaoka will begin traveling within the confines
of a first lane and end traveling within the confines of a second lane, the lane
lines 72 themselves could also be reasonably regarded as “a predicted path
that represents a steerable path [] based on a planned lane change
maneuver.” No arguments are presented for our consideration regarding this
point. Although the distinction between the lane lines 72 and the target line
77 creates some uncertainty as to the Examiner’s position, our decision is
ultimately unaffected by how this uncertainty is resolved. This is because the
secondary reference Gupta teaches the use of polynomial expressions to
represent both lane lines and path or trajectory lines (see Gupta para. 33) and
we agree with the conclusion that it would have been obvious to incorporate
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

4
either of those polynomial line forms into Yamaoka’s display in order to
influence the vehicle’s trajectory. See Final Act. 3.
According to Appellant, the Examiner’s proposed combination would
result in Yamaoka’s display being unchanged and simply using Gupta’s
polynomial path representations for optimizing automated driving and lane
changes. App. Br. 5. However, we see no reason why one skilled in the art
would stop where Appellant suggests. It would clearly be desirable to have a
more accurate representation of the lane change maneuver and/or lanes
themselves in Yamaoka’s display 70 in order to inform the driver of the
vehicle’s plan in automated mode or influence the driver to adhere to an
optimal path in manual mode.
Appellant additionally argues that Gupta is only concerned with
trajectory determinations, not their display. App. Br. 6. The Examiner points
out that Gupta’s trajectory determination system does communicate with its
onboard display system. Ans. 7 (citing Gupta paras. 23, 24). However, we
recognize Gupta’s disclosure in this regard does appear to fall short of
indicating Gupta’s optimized trajectory is actually displayed on Gupta’s
onboard display. This is of no moment here, however, as Gupta need not
also teach this aspect of the claimed subject matter for which the Examiner
relied on Yamaoka. The question is what would result from the combined
teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Here, that result would be Gupta’s polynomic lane and/or trajectory
representation on Yamaoka’s display 70. This falls squarely within the
subject matter defined by claim 1. Ans. 9.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 11.
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

5
Claims 4 and 14
Concerning representative claim 4, Appellant argues:
Yamaoka discloses at most planning a route based on safety
factors, not on safety or a safe field of travel being included in a
display. In short, there is no teaching or suggestion anywhere in
Yamaoka that “updating . . . [a] display includes updating a field
of safe travel.”
App. Br. 6.
In response to Appellant’s argument that Yamaoka does not disclose
the subject matter of claim 4, the Examiner states:
It is the Examiner’s position that Yamaoka does recite the
limitation of “updating the predicted path display includes
updating a field of safe travel.” Yamaoka discloses “(t)he
traveling plan generation unit 12 generates a traveling plan in
which the host vehicle V performs traveling which satisfies
standards such as safety, legal compliance, and traveling
efficiency, on the target route.” (Paragraph 43.) Furthermore,
Yamaoka discloses in figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 56-65 the
situation where the host vehicle detects another vehicle in a
neighboring lane while attempting a lane change and returns the
host vehicle to the original lane (fig. 5). This description clearly
shows the system in Yamaoka constantly updating the
surrounding field of the vehicle for safe travel.
Ans. 10.
Above, the Examiner relies on two aspects of Yamaoka’s disclosure
as satisfying the limitations of claim 4. We address each in turn, beginning
with the safety standards taken into account according to cited paragraph 43.
The undeveloped crux of this first matter would appear to be whether
the recitation “updating the predicted path display includes updating a field
of safe travel” requires, by implication, as Appellant argues, “safety or a safe
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

6
field of travel being included in a display.” App. Br. 6 (Emphasis added). An
example of such display is illustrated, among other places, at reference
numeral 908 in Figure 9 of Appellant’s application. However, just because a
feature appears in Appellant’s preferred embodiment, that is not, without
more, sufficient reason to incorporate that subject matter into the claims. In
re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F. 3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
As the Examiner points out, and it does not appear to be disputed,
Yamaoka’s traveling plan generating unit 12 continuously updates the travel
plan, upon which the visual information in display 70 is based, while taking
into account safety factors. We recognize that the “updating a field of safe
travel” step must, according to claim 4, be included in the “updating the
predicated path display” step. However, we are neither aware of nor apprised
of any reasons why a step of updating a display cannot be regarded as
including updating information upon which that display is based even if such
information is not itself presented on the display. The broadest reasonable
reading of claim 4 would cover this and if Appellant wished to define
something more specific, during prosecution is Appellant’s opportunity to
do so. The process of patent prosecution is an interactive one, where claims
can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of
language explored, and clarification imposed. In re Zletz, 893 F. 2d 319, 321
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
In any case, even under a more narrow reading of claim 4, the second
cited portion of Yamaoka (paras. 56–61; Fig. 5; see also Figs. 6X–Z) would
reasonably be regarded by the skilled artisan as disclosing “updating a field
of safe travel” and including the results of that update in the display. In the
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

7
context of the host vehicle detecting another vehicle in a neighboring lane
while attempting a lane change, i.e., an unsafe condition, and the host
vehicle returning to the original lane, as depicted in Figs. 5 and 6 of
Yamaoka, display 70 is updated to include, in place of the first lane change
target line 77, a second target line 79. Yamaoka para. 70. Displaying the
second target line 79 constitutes an indication on the display that an updated
“field of safe travel” has become the driving lane 74 as opposed to the
neighboring lane 75. We agree with the Examiner that Yamaoka’s disclosure
in this regard falls squarely within the subject matter defined by claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 14.

Claims 5 and 15
Representative claim 5 requires:
wherein updating the predicted path display is based on input via
a steering wheel by an occupant.
Appellant argues that Yamaoka takes into account steering angle but
not input to the steering wheel by an occupant.
Although not cited with a reference to a specific paragraph number, as
is preferable, in rejecting claim 5 the Examiner quotes directly from
paragraph 44 of Yamaoka:
the vehicle control device 100 switches the automatic driving
which is being executed to manual driving in a case where the
amount of operation of a driving operation by the driver of the
host vehicle V during the automatic driving is greater than or
equal to a predetermined threshold value.
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

8
Final Act. 4. Appellant does not address this particular portion of paragraph
44 quoted by the Examiner. In the Answer, the Examiner additionally points
out that the following paragraph, paragraph 45, provides:
The display unit 14 displays the progress situation of the lane
change to the driver of the host vehicle V through the display
screen of the HMI 7. . . the display unit 14 displays the lane line
while changing a position of the lane line according to the
progress situation of the lane change.
Ans. 11 (emphasis omitted). The quoted portion of paragraph 45 does not
appear to make any qualification on the display being updated only as the
result of autonomous driving as Appellant’s arguments suggest. Paragraph
51 of Yamaoka further specifies:
The length of the first target line 77 extending from the host
vehicle front portion 71 until it bends becomes shorter as the host
vehicle V approaches the lane line 204.
See also Figs. 4A–G (illustrating both updating of lane lines 72 and target
line 77).
The Examiner’s determination that Yamaoka updates display 70 and,
to the extent required by claim 5, updates a path displayed thereon, appears
to be accurate and is not addressed with specificity by Appellant.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 15.

Remaining claims
The remaining claims are not separately argued and presumed to stand
or fall with their respective parent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-001095
Application 15/608,309

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 11–18 103 Yamaoka, Gupta 1–8, 11–18
9, 10, 19, 20 103 Yamaoka, Gupta,
Haas, Sim
9, 10, 19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any 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