Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020000008 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
15/842,412 12/14/2017 Stuart C. Salter 83907172(65080-2770) 7446
113140 7590 03/24/2021
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
SHAH, TANMAY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2021 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 STUART C. SALTER, CORNEL LEWIS GARDNER,
PAUL KENNETH DELLOCK, and ANNETTE LYNN HUEBNER
Appeal 2020-000008
Application 15/842,412
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–4, 10, and 15–18. Claims 6–9 and 11–14 are objected
to as depending on a rejected claim. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000008
Application 15/842,412

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to a vehicle that includes a “sensor” and “a
puddle lamp . . . oriented to project a light projection downward beside the
vehicle” in response to the “sensor indicating a user [is] positioned within a
threshold distance of the vehicle.” Spec. ¶¶ 10, 13.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
a LIDAR sensor attachable to the vehicle;
a puddle lamp fixed relative to the LIDAR sensor and
oriented to project a light projection downward beside the
vehicle; and
a computer in communication with the LIDAR sensor and
the puddle lamp and programmed to actuate the puddle lamp in
response to receiving data from the LIDAR sensor indicating a
user positioned within a threshold distance of the vehicle.
REJECTION
Claims 1–4, 10, and 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Nykerk (US 2017/0178498 A1; June 22, 2017) and Mcerlean
(US 2014/0218212 A1; Aug. 7, 2014). Final Act. 4.
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Nykerk
and Mcerlean teaches or suggests “receiving data from the LIDAR sensor
indicating a user positioned within a threshold distance of the vehicle,” as
recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2020-000008
Application 15/842,412

3
2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Nykerk
and Mcerlean teaches or suggests “a plurality of Bluetooth Low Energy
sensors including the sensor,” as recited in claim 15?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–4, 10, 17, and 18
Claim 1 recites “to actuate the puddle lamp in response to receiving
data from the LIDAR sensor indicating a user positioned within a threshold
distance of the vehicle.”
The Examiner relies on Nykerk for teaching a puddle lamp actuated in
response to receiving data from a LIDAR sensor but relies on Mcerlean for
teaching a LIDAR sensor indicating a user positioned within a threshold
distance of the vehicle. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that “the rejections unreasonably rely on the term
‘user’ encompassing the ‘vehicle’ disclosed by Mcerlean” because “[a] user
in the context of the present claims is a person and not a vehicle.” Appeal
Br. 7.
We agree with Appellant that a “user” in this context must be a
person, not a vehicle. We note, however, that the limitation “a user” without
more is not necessarily limited to a user of the claimed vehicle, that is, a
person moving toward the claimed vehicle in order to drive it. For at least
this reason, we agree with the Examiner that Mcerlean’s detection of a user-
driven vehicle teaches or suggests data indicating a user positioned within a
threshold distance of the vehicle, as claimed. See, e.g., Ans. 5 (“the driver
. . . within a car is still a user”).
Appeal 2020-000008
Application 15/842,412

4
Moreover, the Examiner further finds that Mcerlean discloses
detecting a pedestrian. Ans. 32 (citing Mcerlean Fig. 3 element 340); see
also Mcerlean ¶¶ 23 (“Based on the first sensor data, the first computing
device may determine an object type of the detected object, such as whether
the detected object is a . . . pedestrian”), 32 (“there is an object (in this case a
pedestrian 340) that is simultaneously observed by a side-mirror mounted
camera of the second vehicle 315, front facing camera of first vehicle 310
and a rear facing sensor of the third vehicle 335”). A pedestrian is a person,
including, for example, a person walking to their car.
In reply, Appellant argues that “Mcerlean discloses detecting an
object such as a pedestrian but fails to disclose data indicating that the
pedestrian is ‘positioned within a threshold distance of the vehicle.’” Reply
Br. 2 (citing Mcerlean ¶ 32). This is not persuasive, however, because
although Mcerlean discusses a first vehicle receiving data from sensors on
other vehicles as an “example,” Mcerlean also discloses such sensors can be
on pedestrians. See, e.g., Mcerlean ¶ 32 (“According to the example of
arrangement 300, the computing device of the first vehicle . . . may
continuously receive . . . sensor data streams from cameras/sensors of other
nearby vehicles” (emphasis added); “In some embodiments, the first
computing device may also obtain sensor data and/or video streams from
other devices, such as . . . images captured by pedestrian mobile devices”).
Mcerlean also discloses to “determine the position of objects (for example,
additional vehicles, road hazards, pedestrians, and the like).” Id. ¶ 19. And
Mcerlean discloses to “generate a 3D image of the pedestrian” based on “the

2 We note that every page in the Answer appears to be labeled “Page 1,” so
our citations manually count from the first page with the “Page 1” label.
Appeal 2020-000008
Application 15/842,412

5
relative position” of the other nearby sensors and using that 3D image in
order to avoid the pedestrian. Id. ¶ 32. Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that Mcerlean only teaches detecting that another
vehicle is within a threshold distance, not a pedestrian within a threshold
distance. Appellant also does not separately challenge the combination of
Nykerk with Mcerlean.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 10, and their dependent claims 2–4, 17, and 18, which
Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 7; 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 15 and 16
Claim 15 depends from independent claim 10, which recites “a
sensor” and “to actuate the puddle lamp in response to receiving data
generated by the sensor.” Dependent claim 15 then specifies “the sensor”
must be one of a plurality of “Bluetooth Low Energy” sensors.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claim 15. Contrary to the claim language, the Examiner relies on “different
sensors” for claim 10 versus claim 15, specifically a LIDAR sensor for claim
10 versus a Bluetooth sensor for claim 15. Appeal Br. 8. Further, “the
Office Action cites to the use of Bluetooth (not Bluetooth Low Energy)” and
even then, the role of the cited Bluetooth sensor is “for communication,
unconnected to ‘indicating a user positioned within a threshold distance of
the vehicle.’” Id. (citing Nykerk ¶ 43; Mcerlean ¶ 21). Thus, the Examiner
has not shown how the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests
a Bluetooth Low Energy sensor, let alone a Bluetooth Low Energy sensor
that actuates a puddle lamp as claimed.
Appeal 2020-000008
Application 15/842,412

6
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15
and its dependent claim 16.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 10, 15–18 103 Nykerk, Mcerlean 1–4, 10, 17, 18 15, 16
TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART