FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2020

15098850 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 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.
15/098,850 04/14/2016 Basavaraj TONSHAL 83625531 1862
28395 7590 10/23/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
MOREAU, AUSTIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2020 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 BASAVARAJ TONSHAL, PANDURANGA CHARY
KONDOJU, PRAVEEN KUMAR YALAVARTY, and JOHN WILLIAM
SCHMOTZER
____________________

Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the
real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system with a vehicle processor
configured to receive a query, including response network parameters, from
a remote entity; determine a response transport policy based on the
parameters; determine if a network having characteristics defined by the
policy in conjunction with parameter values is currently connected; and
utilize the network, if currently available, to transmit a query response.
Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
a vehicle processor configured to:
receive a query, including response network parameters,
from a remote entity;
determine a response transport policy based on the
parameters;
determine if a network having characteristics defined by
the policy in conjunction with parameter values is currently
connected; and
utilize the network, if currently available, to transmit a
query response, otherwise queue the response until such a
network is connected.
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 11, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nix (US
2017/0113664 A1, published Apr. 27, 2017) and Gremmert (US 9,607,477
B2, issued Mar. 28, 2017). Final Act. 6–9.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 14,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed April 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Final Office Action mailed July 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 1, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
3
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert and Schaffer (US
2007/0201657 A1, published Aug. 30, 2007). Final Act. 9–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert and Travostino
(US 2016/0360461 A1, published Dec. 8, 2016). Final Act. 11–14.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert and Diedrich
(US 2017/0024201 A1, published Jan. 26, 2017). Final Act. 14–15.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert, Diedrich and Li (US
2017/0150471 A1, published May 25, 2017). Final Act. 15–16
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert, Diedrich and Chan (US
2014/0226663 A1, published Aug. 14, 2014). Final Act. 17–18.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert, and Starsinic
(US 2016/0192277 A1, published June 30, 2016). Final Act. 18–19.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert, and what is
known in the art. Final Act. 20–21.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert, Diedrich and
Giaretta (US 2012/0113971 A1, published May 10, 2012). Final Act. 22–
23.
The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert, Diedrich and
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
4
Travostino (US 2016/0024201 A1, published Dec. 8, 2016). Final Act. 23–
25.
The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nix, Gremmert, Diedrich,
Travostino, Diedrich and Li. Final Act. 25–26.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Rejection of independent claim 1, 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues that the combination of Nix and Gremmert does not
teach the claim 1 limitations directed to receiving a query including response
network parameters from a remote entity and determining a response
transport policy based upon the parameters. Appeal Br. 5–8, Reply Br. 2–5.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has equated the designated
priority level in Nix with the claimed “response network parameter,” and, as
such, the rejection must show that the determined transport policy must be
based upon the priority level. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant asserts that
Gremmert teaches that the “‘designated priority setting’ is further defined as
something that defines ‘a designated data transmission Mode,’” which
shows that the priority setting is not a “response network parameter.” Id. at
6. Further, Appellant argues that the teachings of Gremmert, cited by the
Examiner, identify that the downlink request (equated to the claimed query)
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
5
identifies the type of response transmission, thus there is no reason to
determine a type of network as it is explicitly defined by the downlink
request. Id.at 6. Thus, Appellant asserts there is no reason to combine the
references as they do not work in concert. Appeal Br. 6. Additionally,
Appellant argues that in both references the vehicles detecting the data also
determine the network type as such by the time the data is sent the
communication channel has been determined and not identified in a query
from the remote entity. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that Nix was relied upon to teach a vehicle
which collects data from various sensors and exports it to a remote cloud
server, and that there is a rule set (policy) of instructions including priority
which indicate how the data should be handled. Ans. 4–5 (citing Nix para
64, 65, 94, 99 and Fig. 3). See also Final Act 7. The Examiner
acknowledges that Nix does not teach the data transmission is based upon a
request that includes instructions/priority for sending a response. Ans. 5.
The Examiner cites to Gremmert to teach a vehicle with a surveillance
incident reporting system, in which the vehicle stores data for remote
analysis and that the data is transmitted in response to a downlink request
which includes indication of a designated transmission mode or a priority
setting. Id. at 5, citing Gremmert (Figs. 1, 2, col. 8 ll. 27–50, col. 11, ll. 53–
65, col. 16 ll. 33–50. The Examiner states:
The functionality of Gremmert that is incorporated is the
sending of the data in response to a query containing a request
for the data and parameters specifying how the data should be
sent (i.e. the indication of a designated priority level). The
combination of the query functionality of Gremmert with the
system of Nix would result in modifying the transmission of
event data in Nix to occur in response to the received query of
Gremmert and that the event data should be transmitted in
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
6
accordance with the priority indicated in the query of Gremmert.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to perform such combination as allowing the remote
entity to request the required data and indicate the priority for
sending the required data would improve network utilization and
efficiency by allowing the remote entity to indicate with
specificity what data it requires and provide the priority with
which it requires the data. In other words, allowing the remote
entity to receive data in response to a request indicating a priority
with which to transmit the data allows the remote entity to
request transmission of the data with a high priority when the
requested data is urgently required by the remote entity, or to
request transmission of the data with a lower priority when the
requested data is not needed right away, thereby improving
efficiency of the network and potentially minimizing network
transmission costs.
Id.
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Nix and Gremmert, we
concur with the Examiner and are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s
arguments. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and further
note that we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments as they are
premised upon the assertion that Gremmert teaches that the “‘designated
priority setting’ is further defined as something that defines ‘a designated
data transmission mode.’” App. Br. 6. We disagree. Gremmert discusses
that the downlink request may include a designated transmission mode or a
designated priority and that the response will be in accordance with the
priority level. Gremmert col. 16, ll. 33–38, 50–54. Thus, showing that
priority is different than the designated transmission mode. Further in
discussing the responses, when the priority is designated as high, Gremmert
teaches using one of several transmission modes which are available and
enables transmission in the shortest time interval. Gremmert col. 16 ll. 55–
61. When the priority level is designated to be an intermediate level, the
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
7
transmission modes include many of the same modes as in the high priority,
but the selection of the mode is to be performed based upon criteria such as
reduced expense and transmission within an interval. Gremmert col. 17, ll.
3–16. Thus, showing that priority level is not the same as transmission
mode, but the priority level in Gremmert is a network parameter to be used
in the response. We additionally note that Appellant’s Figure 5 and the
discussion in paragraphs 57 and 58 identify priority as a network parameter.
Further, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument that
the skilled artisan would have no reason to combine the references as Nix
has a predefined rule set which explicitly specifies the network. Reply Br.
2–3. The Examiner found that the skilled artisan would modify Nix to have
the data provided in response to a query, and cited Gremmert as teaching
this query. Final Act. 5, 8. As discussed above, Gremmert teaches that the
query includes priority, a network parameter to be used in the response. It is
the combination of the references, where the priority designated in the
request (of Gremmert) with the set rule set (policy) is used to determine the
communication network (of Nix), which meets the claim. Further,
Appellant’s arguments that the skilled artisan would not use query for Nix’s
unexpected events as they are unexpected is not persuasive. Reply Br. 3.
This argument is speculative, and Gremmert addresses this issue by
identifying that such a query may be for a more complete set of data. See
Gremmert col. 16, ll. 33–34. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 7, 11, 12, and 20
similarly rejected and grouped with claim 1.
With respect to the rejections of claims 2 through 6, 9, 10, 14 through
19, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error for the same
reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–11. Accordingly, we sustain the
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
8
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 6, 9, 10, and 14 through 19 for the
same reasons as claim 1.
With respect to claims 8 and 13, Appellant argues the Examiner’s
rejection is in error for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant additionally states:
This is an example of “cost” being a consideration, but the
Examiner never presents evidence of the combination teaching
“a request specifying the cost parameter,” which is effectively
what is claimed by the claimed combination. In all the prior art,
the cost consideration is part of the onboard policy, not specified
as a request parameter.
Appeal Br. 10.
These arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Initially, we note that they do not address the Examiner’s specific
findings on page 19 of the Final Rejection that Nix and Gremmert teach the
claim 8 limitation of the parameter value including specification of an entity
paying a cost for network transmission. Further, as discussed above,
Gremmert teaches a request identifying priority, and that the priority (a
network parameter) indicates a whether cost is to be considered in the
transmission. As such, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 13.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
9

In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 11, 12, 20 103. Nix, Gremmert 1, 7, 11, 12, 20
2 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Schaffer
2
3, 16 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Travostino
3, 16
4 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Diedrich
4
5 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Diedrich, Li
5
6 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Diedrich, Chan
6
8, 13 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Starsinic
8, 13
9, 14 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Knowledge in the
art.
9, 14
10, 15 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Diedrich, Giaretta
10, 15
17, 18 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Diedrich,
Travostino
17, 18
19 103 Nix, Gremmert,
Diedrich,
Travostino,
Diedrich, Li
19
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2019-004108
Application 15/098,850
10
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