Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2021

2021000424 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2021)

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.
15/442,900 02/27/2017 Jan Bremkens 83768979(65080-2323) 1214
113140 7590 07/14/2021
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2021 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 JAN BREMKENS, JOSEPH PARK, and LODEWIJK WIJFFELS
Appeal 2021-000424
Application 15/442,900
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 32.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to the claims listed in the Claims Appendix. See Appeal Br. 14–
17.
Appeal 2021-000424
Application 15/442,900

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to the interaction between two vehicles
so that one of the vehicles can safely change lanes. See Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer for a first vehicle that includes at least one of
an autonomous or a semiautonomous mode, programmed to:

determine a first trajectory for the first vehicle to
change from a first lane to a second lane;

upon determining that a second vehicle blocks the
first trajectory including the change from the first lane to
the second lane, determine a speed adjustment for the
second vehicle that will allow to the first vehicle to
proceed on the first trajectory to change from the first lane
to the second lane; and

send, via wireless vehicle-to-vehicle
communications, to a second computer in the second
vehicle, an instruction based on the determined first
trajectory of the first vehicle, a second vehicle location,
and a second vehicle speed, wherein the instruction
includes an identifier of the second vehicle and at least one
target speed for the second vehicle, the target speed
determined according to the speed adjustment for the
second vehicle that will allow to the first vehicle to
proceed on the first trajectory to change from the first lane
to the second lane.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3, 5, 8–10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, and 323 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Switkes (US

3 Claim 23 was canceled and claim 30 is not listed in the Claims Appendix.
See Response to Non-Final Action, dated Aug. 9, 2019. Although the
Examiner omits claim 10 in the heading of Rejection 1, the Examiner
Appeal 2021-000424
Application 15/442,900

3
2014/0303870 A1, pub. Oct. 9, 2014) and Wunsche (US 2017/0361762 A1,
pub. Dec. 21, 2017). Final Act. 3–6.
2. Claims 6, 7, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Switkes, Wunsche, and Buchanan (US 2004/0167717 A1,
pub. Aug. 26, 2004). Final Act. 6–7.
ANALYSIS
A. Rejection 1 (Obviousness Over Switkes and Wunsche)
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is hardly a picture of clarity. As
best we can determine, the Examiner finds that Switkes discloses many of
the limitations of claim 1, including the determination of a first trajectory for
a first vehicle based on wirelessly exchanging speed adjustment information
with a second vehicle, but lacks teaching the limitation that the speed
adjustment be used to determine a target speed for the second vehicle that
allows the first vehicle to proceed along a trajectory to change lanes. See
Final Act. 3. For that missing limitation, the Examiner finds that Wunsche
teaches a system for wirelessly exchanging speed and trajectory information
between trucks in a platoon, while also teaching a system that allows a
“vehicle in an adjacent lane to change lanes into the lane in front of the lead
truck.” Id. at 4 (citing Wunsche ¶¶ 3, 6, 18, 25); see also Ans. 5–7 (citing
Wunsche ¶¶ 3, 6, 15, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26). As such, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Switkes’s system with Wunsche’s

nonetheless lists claim 10 among the rejected claims in the “Summary” and
“Conclusion” of the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 1, 7. The
Examiner’s Answer also acknowledges that “Applicant only argues
independent claims 1, and 10; since these claims have identical
feature/limitations, these arguments are analyzed below.” Ans. 3. Thus, we
treat claim 10 as being rejected in conjunction with claim 1.
Appeal 2021-000424
Application 15/442,900

4
lane-changing system to allow lane changes between vehicles in a platoon
“via wireless communication assistance to avoid possible acciden[t]s.” See
Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that, although Switkes’s system includes vehicles
equipped with various speed and distance sensors, it lacks any determination
of whether the second vehicle is blocking the trajectory of the first vehicle
wishing to change lanes. Appeal Br. 8. Moreover, according to Appellant,
neither Switkes nor Wunsche determines a speed adjustment for the
blocking second vehicle that will allow the first vehicle to proceed along a
lane-changing trajectory. Id. at 9.
Appellant apprises us of Examiner error. Although Switkes and
Wunsche each teach a system that coordinates the speed and location of a
plurality of vehicles moving in a platoon or convoy along a highway, and
Wunsche’s system includes a system relating to lane changes, the combined
teachings do not suggest executing a lane change of a first vehicle by
instructing a second vehicle to adjust its speed when the second vehicle is
blocking the first vehicle, as required by claim 1. In particular, the
Examiner’s proposed combination does not suggest that a first vehicle
determines that a second vehicle blocks a lane change, and determines a
speed adjustment for the second vehicle that will allow the first vehicle to
make the lane change.
For instance, Switkes discloses “forward-looking RADAR or LIDAR
unit 1130, which senses distance and relative speed of the vehicle in front
410” and “allows the system to command braking” in the rear vehicle 420
“even in the absence of driver command.” Switkes ¶ 43. Figure 9 of
Appeal 2021-000424
Application 15/442,900

5
Switkes, reproduced below, illustrates the manner in which the system
activates a braking event between two tractor-trailer trucks.

Figure 9 above shows a short-range communication link between the
two trucks for activating a braking event in the rear truck. Switkes ¶ 39. As
disclosed, Switkes’s system “enables vehicles to follow closely behind each
other, in a convenient, safe manner,” where “the system takes control of the
rear vehicle 420 and controls it to a close following distance behind the front
vehicle 410.” Id. ¶¶ 31, 39. While we appreciate that Switkes discloses
controlling the speed between vehicles, this functionality allows the vehicles
in Switkes to follow each other closely at a safe distance, rather than
allowing the vehicles to proceed on a trajectory for changing lanes. Id. ¶ 39;
see also id. at 6:36–41.
Wunsche fares no better. Although, admittedly, Wunsche discloses a
laser line and graphics projection system to indicate “when it is safe to
change lanes into the travel lane in front of the lead truck in the truck
platoon,” that indication, however, is for vehicles that are not part of the
truck platoon. Wunsche ¶ 25. More specifically, Wunsche’s laser line and
graphics projection system simply provides a visible cue to drivers of
vehicles outside the truck platoon to prevent them from “inadvertently
interrupting the truck platoon by changing lanes into the travel lane of the
truck platoon and by positioning other vehicles (e.g., vehicle 70) in between
Appeal 2021-000424
Application 15/442,900

6
trucks in the truck platoon.” Id. Nowhere do we discern any suggestion in
Wunsche of adjusting the speed of the trucks in the platoon to allow vehicle
70 to change lanes. Indeed, because there is no wireless communication
between vehicle 70 and the trucks in the platoon, it follows then that there is
no instruction from vehicle 70 to the trucks that would adjust their speed.
In the end, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
establish adequately that the proposed combination of Switkes and Wunsche
“determin[es] that a second vehicle blocks the first trajectory including the
change from the first lane to the second lane,” and that upon this
determination “determine[s] a speed adjustment for the second vehicle that
will allow [] the first vehicle to proceed on the first trajectory to change from
the first lane to the second lane,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor do we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 10, which includes similar limitations. And
for the same reasons as the independent claims, we do sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, and 32.
B. Rejection 2 (Obviousness Over Switkes, Wunsche, and Buchanan)
The Examiner does not rely on Buchanan in any manner that would
remedy the deficiencies set forth above in Rejection 1. As such, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6, 7, 26, and 27 for the same
reasons we do not sustain the claims under Rejection 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2021-000424
Application 15/442,900

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8–10,
21, 22, 24, 25,
28, 29, 31, 32
103 Switkes, Wunsche 1–3, 5, 8–10,
21, 22, 24, 25,
28, 29, 31, 32
6, 7, 26, 27 103 Switkes, Wunsche,
Buchanan
6, 7, 26, 27
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–10, 21,
22, 24–29, 31,
32
REVERSED