Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2021

2020004890 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
15/720,597 09/29/2017 Kin C. Fung HRA-35960.27 1019
139779 7590 12/27/2021
Rankin Hill & Clark LLP
23755 Lorain Road
Suite 200
North Olmsted, OH 44070
EXAMINER
PHAM, QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2021 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):
dragony@rankinhill.com
overberger@rankinhill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KIN C. FUNG and TIMOTHY J. DICK
____________

Appeal 2020-004890
Application 15/720,597
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 26, 28–30, and 32–45, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Honda Motor Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.

Appeal 2020-004890
Application 15/720,597

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The invention relates to “a system and method for responding to
driver behavior.” Spec. ¶ 2. In particular,
[m]ethods of assessing driver behavior include
monitoring vehicle systems and driver monitoring systems to
accommodate for a driver's slow reaction time, attention lapse
and/or alertness. When it is determined that a driver is drowsy,
for example, the response system may modify the operation of
one or more vehicle systems. The systems that may be modified
include: visual devices, audio devices, tactile devices, antilock
brake systems, automatic brake prefill systems, brake assist
systems, auto cruise control systems, electronic stability control
systems, collision warning systems, lane keep assist systems,
blind spot indicator systems, electronic pretensioning systems
and climate control systems.

Abstr. Claim 26 is exemplary:
26. A method of controlling a vehicle system in a vehicle, comprising:
receiving monitoring information about a state of a driver from a
monitoring system of the vehicle;
receiving vehicle operating information about the vehicle system and
the state of the driver from the vehicle system;
calculating a driver state index comprising the monitoring information
about the state of the driver and the vehicle operating information about the
vehicle system and the state of the driver;
determining a control coefficient using the driver state index;
Appeal 2020-004890
Application 15/720,597

3
changing a control parameter of the vehicle system using the driver
state index and the control coefficient, wherein the control parameter is a
system status of the vehicle system; and
modifying control of the vehicle system using the control parameter.

References and Rejections2
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
26, 28–30,
32–36, 38–42,
44–45
103 Basir (US 2003/0151516 A1, pub. Aug. 14, 2003),
Galley (US 2009/0115589 A1, pub. May 7, 2009),
Tokoro (US 2007/0168128 A1, pub. Jul. 19, 2007)
37, 43 103 Basir, Galley, Tokoro, Kaplan (US 2010/0094103
A1, pub. Apr. 15, 2010)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of
Basir, Galley, and Tokoro collectively teach “determining a control
coefficient using the driver state index; changing a control parameter of the
vehicle system using the driver state index and the control coefficient,
wherein the control parameter is a system status of the vehicle system,” as
recited in independent claim 26 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 7–11;
Reply Br. 2–3.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
November 6, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated March 31, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated April 14, 2020 (“Ans.”); and
(4) Reply Brief dated June 13, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-004890
Application 15/720,597

4
The Examiner cites Tokoro for teaching both the claimed “control
coefficient” and “control parameter of the vehicle system” and finds:
determing a control coefficient using the driver state
index, (Tokoro: [0016]-[0017], [0023], [0047], [0054]-[0057],
and FIG. 3 S9 determine whether driver is perform inattentive
driving? S11 Yes: shifting to promotion side, S13 No: control
for normal state, S21 determine whether driver is perform
inattentive driving? S23 Yes: shifting to promotion side by little
amount, S25 No: shifting to suppression side by little amount,
S33 determine whether driver is perform inattentive driving?
S37 Yes: stop follow-up running control shifting to suppression
side by little amount, S35 No: stop follow-up running control
shifting to suppression side).
Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 3–4.

Tokoro . . . disclose[s] the method steps of changing a
control parameter of the vehicle system using the driver state
index and the control coefficient (Tokoro: [0011], [0028],
[0037], [0041], and FIG. 3: when a result of detection of an
inattentive condition of the driver is taken into consideration,
by changing the control condition for the running support
control performed by each running support means, an
appropriate running support can be performed based not only
on the result of detection of an object but also on the inattentive
condition of the drive).
Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 8.
We disagree with the Examiner. Starting with claim interpretation of
the “control coefficient,” the Specification explains that “[a] control
coefficient may be any value used in determining a control parameter.”
Spec. ¶ 156.
Turning to the rejection, while Tokoro’s disclosure of shifting to
promotion side by “little amount” (Tokoro Fig. 3B) describes a value and
that value can teach either the claimed “control coefficient” or “control
Appeal 2020-004890
Application 15/720,597

5
parameter of the vehicle system,”3 it cannot teach both claim terms. Since
the Examiner has not shown Tokoro teaches both the claimed “control
coefficient” and “control parameter of the vehicle system,” the Examiner has
not shown the cited references collectively teach “determining a control
coefficient using the driver state index; changing a control parameter of the
vehicle system using the driver state index and the control coefficient,” as
required by claim 26 (emphases added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26, and independent
claim 38 for similar reasons.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 28–30, 32–37, and 39–45. Although the Examiner cites an additional
reference for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional reference overcomes the deficiency discussed above in the
rejection of claim 26.
We note Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the
identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional
arguments. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (an administrative agency’s “judicious use of a single
dispositive issue approach . . . can . . . save . . . unnecessary cost and effort”).

3 The Examiner does not specifically map the claimed “control coefficient”
or “control parameter of the vehicle system.”
Appeal 2020-004890
Application 15/720,597

6
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26, 28–30, and
32–45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
26, 28–30,
32–36, 38–
42, 44–45
103 Basir, Galley,
Tokoro
26, 28–30,
32–36, 38–
42, 44–45
37, 43 103 Basir, Galley,
Tokoro, Kaplan
37, 43
Overall
Outcome
26, 28–30,
32–45

REVERSED